I have a number of MS Access databases that range from the simple to the fairly complex. They exist as split databases on a shared drive on an on site LAN and the users all have accdr front ends to work with.
Until Covid 19 this worked quite well, now we all have to work from home. While I expected some performance issues, I did not quite expect performance to take quite that much of a hit. So I am looking for ways to migrate to something that will work well with everyone trying to work via a VPN.
An additional fly in the ointment is that there is no budget to work with and getting IT support is akin to summoning the great old ones (it's difficult and you are likely to die insane).
So I have begun to research some different options. MS SQL Server has come up, but I don't know very much about how to implement it. I do not have a dedicated machine to put this on.
I have looked at Sharepoint, but some of the stuff I have been reading makes it seem like this is not a great option as some of my queries are complicated and I have some pretty large tables (45k records, 100 fields per record) In the most complex DB, I have to add several thousand records each day and run several update queries on the freshly added records.
MS Azure looks promising, but again I don't know if that will put me at odds with the malevolent IT gods.
I started looking at office 365 Power apps, but I don't need any mobile device support and it doesn't look like it has the Oomph I need.
Google and Duck Duck Go haven't thrown up anything usefull that I could find among the dross. I'm certain what I need is out there, I just can't find it. I have found that One drive is right out, and likewise Sharepoint for anything other than the simplest DB I have built.
What I am looking for is any solutions, articles, books or even papyrus scrolls and stone tablets that might get me pointed in the right direction. Any Ideas? Any other information you need?
Edit: After so looking I have found that I may be able to get MS SQL server on a virtual server without angering the IT demons. Azure as a solution is out unless I find a suitable sacrifice. Any good places to look for information on how to use SQL server from a standing start?
Consider migrating the backend databases to SQL Server. There's a SQL Server Migration Assistant that will do this for you. Your frontend will contain links to the resulting SQL Server tables.
The last time I did this I got an immediate 2X performance improvement on a LAN. Over a VPN, you should expect similar, possibly better, performance improvements. Quite a good win for something so simple to do without having to do a full rewrite. Don't expect miracles however; Access by nature is a very thick client.
You don't necessarily need a full-blown SQL Server; SQL Server Express should suffice, and you can run that on any machine on your LAN. The download for SQL Server Express Edition can be found here.
You can read up on the migration process here.
You should consider using Remote Destop Connection first!
As you already managed to connect employees by VPN to LAN, you just need to enable remote access to their machines at work! That is the simplest solution and it doesn't need a fast connection or any changes on the application. You can enable WOL so they can turn on machines themselfes.
Of course you should also consider migrate to a RDBMS like Robert advised!
Related
We are a small team of 5 working on a same database. It's a reporting solution so there is about 5 more 3rd party databases which is source of data.
It is very important to have latest data for development, so sometimes those linked databases backed up and restored on each dev's local SQL Server(an they pretty big). Then there is always a problem with dev's databases being out of sync from each other. When it was 2 of us, there was no problem. But when more people got added to the team - it starts to be a pain to arrange.
So, I was thinking about building a dev SQL Server. It will be more powerful then laptops (faster queries) and latency should not be an issue. We always have internet when working and that is not a problem either. I only wonder if it's OK to work together out of the same database. Sounds like a good plan, but not sure if there will be any "gotchas" comparing having databases locally. We will be able to keep data fresh for everyone easy. And I think it should save time and making easier to build/rebuild dev machines if needed. I even think that database where we code can be 1 per person, but still on a same box. This way we can always compare them "right on a box" if needed.
Any advices on this setup? Pro's or Con's?
A new option is to use isolated containers on a shared server, with clones of the production database environment. Full disclosure, I work for Windocks, where this is the primary use of SQL Server containers. The most recent release includes built-in SQL Server db cloning. Benefits of this approach include speed (environments deliverd in <1 minute), and license and labor savings by going to a shared server rather than a score of VMs.
I am developing a Visual Basic .NET application to be used by the staff of a small training centre nearby. The front-end (UI, menus, etc.) will all be in VB .NET, and there will be a back-end database for storing all of the required data, such as student records and meeting information.
What I would like to know is if it's possible to use a Microsoft Access database for this purpose, and have it accessible by all the staff in the centre (on the same network) at the same time. For example, would I be able to put the database in a shared network folder, and have a copy of the VB application on each PC that would all be able to read/edit/add to the database?
Advice would be appreciated as to how I should proceed. (Note: I would really prefer a method of doing this with MS Access as opposed to suggestions to switch to SQL, as Access was the requested platform)
Thanks in advance.
Yes it can be done and from a programming stand point it is any (much) different then using SQL Server. I think the biggest considerations you have to think about are:
How many simultaneous users do you expect to have using the application?
How secure does the application need to be? Is Access security enough?
How big do I expect the database to become in the next 1 to 5 years?
I think those are you biggest considerations when using Access as a data store and if your answers fall within the specs of Access capabilities then go for it. You can always migrate to SQL Server at a later time if you run into the limits of Access.
You did not mention the version of Access that you are using but a quick Google/Bing search should return specs for every version available.
Yes, but probably not advisable. Despite the disclaimer in your post, you should try to convince the powers to be to look at SQL Server Express instead-- it's free.
But, if Access is the database, all you need to do is have the database reside on a shared directory with full read-write capabilities for all the users. Hopefully when you say "staff of a small training centre", you mean it.
Install the VB.Net program on the client computers and setup the connection string with the path to the database.
Someone else with more recent Microsoft Access experience can probably give better hints on how to reduce the corruption factor. My own experience was to stay away from queries in Access-- have the Access database only for tables and do all of your queries with SQL statements in your client code. My corrupted databases reduced dramatically when I did that, but that was 10-15 years ago.
Back up the database religiously.
Yes, just make sure you chane the extension of your back end access db to your_database_name.be_accdb and it will start logging once the user start writing to it. But I recommend SQL sever
I have a client that currently uses a local Advantage Database on their PC along with an application. They are thinking of upscaling their setup to have multiple applications running communicating with a database server i.e/a client-server environment.
They are now considering the best database for this approach. They are looking at the Advantage Database Server product in comparison to SQL Server Express(the application does not warrant a full SQL Server at this stage).
Obviously SQL Server is a more well known product probably with more support but I was hoping you could give me some opinions and thoughts on what you think the best product would be in terms of performance, stability and support.
One thing to note although not directly relevant is that the application is currently written in Delphi and there could be a move to C# to bring it up to date.
The migration from a local Advantage Database to a client/server Advantage database is a very simple process. It simply involves changing the connection properties within the program. There are no other coding changes that need to be done.
Advantage has a great support team and has been in development for over 15 years. The stability and support are at least equal to SQL Server.
Advantage also provides a .NET Data Provider which would allow for C# development.
I have developed for both SQL Server and Advantage. They each have their pros and cons (although now I favor Advantage).
Given your situation, however, this decision appears to be a no-brainer: Advantage Database Server. Why? It's already done!
My Advantage programs run, unmodified, against the same database either locally or remotely. All I change is the connection string. I'm not saying that your customer's code won't have to be changed. I am saying it is likely to be trivial. Compare that to the greater effort involved in switching to a whole new database engine.
In general I'm a SQL Server person all the way. I work with id daily and have for almost ten years, but in your situatuion, it seems silly to consider moving to a new database when there is aclear upgrade path to do what you want using the backend you already have. It would be much less work and far less likely to introduce new bugs to stay within the same database family.
ADS wins hands down. It is maintenance-free. It is extremely reliable. It is extremely fast. It is extremely scalable. SQL is very well supported, and the ADS newsgroups are responsive (answers within hours instead of days on SQL server fora) and well-informed. I have been using ADS since 1991 and it has never gone wrong! My users are incredibly demanding and to be able to turn round solutions within hours instead of days, is both a joy to me and a business incentive to the end users and clients. Deployment is gentle, fast and simple. Platform support is better than SQL server. 64-bit server deployment abounds and is well-grounded, transparent and reliable. 64-bit clients are coming in the next version (10). My experience with ADS is wholly positive, whereas my ventures with SQL server have been fraught with difficulties, idiosyncrasies and workrounds!
I happen to be a support rep for Advantage so when you say "Obviously SQL Server is a more well known product probably with more support" I have to argue a bit.
As Chris stated switching from Advantage Local Server to the the Advantage Remote (client/server) Server is a pretty painless process - they designed it that way.
Install the Advantage Database Server on a machine where the data is located (not a requirement but it's recommended). You can get a free trial here: http://marketing.ianywhere.com/forms/ADS91-30-Day
Within the application there will be TAdsConnection component(s) - change the TAdsConnection.ConnectionType to 'REMOTE' (http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com/dz/webhelp/Advantage9.1/mergedProjects/ade/sec7/connectiontype.htm)
You can specify the path (TAdsConnection.ConnectPath) from the clients in a couple different ways but the recommended is:
\\server:6262\mydata
http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com/dz/webhelp/Advantage9.1/mergedProjects/ade/sec7/connectpath_tadsconnection.htm
Note: 6262 is the port used by default (may need to add an exception to the firewall). Also if your application uses a data dictionary the path would include the name of the .ADD file (e.g. \\server:6262\mydata\mydd.add)
Hope this helps!
I am working for a company and I need to create a program really fast. My program will run with 100 users and they will make approximately 100 transactions each per day. As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server. I am therefore looking for alternatives that have some sort of transaction support without running on a server. I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems. Isn't is so that a whole table is locked as soon as one user attempts to read from it? Anyways... My question is what other alternatives there are.
The real answer is likely to vary significantly depending on what quantity of data is being talked about here.
I'd take a look at SQLite. It supports transactions, triggers, etc and is supported by things like NHibernate which may make your database mapping life much easier.
Check out SQLite.
Is sqlite a proper solution? Not sure how remote storage is supported, though. That's not a common feature.
You could look into SQL CE, it's a very good local database from Microsoft.
There are many options. As others have stated, setting up and running with SQLLite, SQL Server Express, or any of a number of other small, light, and free databases.
Assuming you need this today, I would go with the one you know most about. Further, I would stay away from anything resembling Access. If you don't already have experience in using it for multi user access, you are going to burn too much time figuring out the problems.
That said, I'd lean towards SQL Server express first. It's free and can scale up to full sql server with no code changes.
I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems.
I'd say locking and queuing would be the least of your worries. With 100 concurrent users, Access will probably corrupt itself in minutes. With 10k+ records/day, it will likely bog down your entire network in a month or so.
As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server.
You can bring a database server up in an hour. Much less time than you'll spend hacking away at Access. There's open-source virtual machine images, MSSQL Express, hosted solutions, etc. Time and cost should be non-issues.
About the only thing I can think of that would have you using Access is the Forms support (which can be hooked to MSSQL Server) or DBA maintenance. Frankly, though, at 100 users Access will take so much babysitting that you can afford a hosted SQL instance and still come out ahead.
I think that Firebird can be a very good alternative.
Firebird is available in embedded and can also work with server. It have many features.
Is it good, bad, or indifferent to run SQL Server on your webserver?
I'm using Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005, but I don't think that matters to this question.
For small sites, it doesn't make a bit of a difference.
As the load grows, though, this scales really badly, and quicker than you think:
Database servers are built on the premise they "own" the server. They trade memory for speed and they easily use all available RAM for internal caching.
Once resources start to be scarce, profiling becomes very difficult -- it is clear that IIS and SQL are both suffering, less clear where the bottleneck is. IIS needs CPU, SQL Server needs RAM or CPU etc etc
No matter how many layers you put in your code, it all runs on the same CPU, therefore a single layered application will run better in this context -- less overhead -- but it will not scale.
Security is really bad, usually you isolate SQL behind a firewall!
If you can afford it, it's probably better to shell out a few bucks and get a second server, maybe using PostgreSQL. One IIS server and one PostgreSQL cost about as much as on IIS + SQL Server because of licensing costs...
Larger shops would probably not consider this a best practice... However, if you aren't dealing with hundreds of requests per second, you're fine putting them both on one box.
In fact, for small apps, you will see better performance on the back-end because data does not have to go across the wire. It's all about scale.
Keep in mind that database servers eat memory. Here's one important lesson from the school of hard knocks: if you decide to run SQL Server 2005 on the same machine as your web server (and that is the setup you mentioned in your question), make sure you go into Sql Server Management Studio and do this:
Right click on the server instance and click properties
Select 'memory' from the list on the left
Change 'maximum server memory' to something your server can sustain.
If you don't do that, SQL Server will eventually take up all of your server's RAM and hang onto it indefinitely. This will cause your server to more or less sputter and die. If you are not aware of this, it can be very frustrating to troubleshoot.
I've done this quite a few times. It's not something you would do if you had the infrastructure of a large corporation and it does not scale, but it's fine for a lot of things.
It really comes down to how much work your webserver and your sql server are doing.
Without more information I doubt you are going to get any helpful answers.
If your web server is publicly accessible, this is a VERY bad idea from a security perspective.
Although it makes a lot of things more difficult from a routing, firewall, ports, authentication, etc. perspective, separation is good. When you have your database server running on the web server, if your web server is compromised, then your sql server is, too.
When you have them on separate boxes, you've raised the bar a little.
There's still a lot more work to be done to secure your web server AND your database server, but why make it easier than it needs to be?
I'd say it was best to run them on the same server until it becomes a problem. That way you'll save yourself some money and time upfront. Once the site becomes a success and requires a some architectural changes it should have already paid for itself.
Remember to back up :)
It will depend on the expected load of the server. For small sites, it is no problem at all (if correctly configured). For large sites, you might want to consider distributing the load over different servers: web server, file server, database server, etc.
I've seen this issue over and over again. The right answer is to put SQL Server on one machine and IIS (web server) on the other. Your money will go into the SQL Server machine because the right drive system and RAM must be purchased to support a efficient server but the web server can be a much scaled down & less expensive machine with just a mirrored drive set.