Re: Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- From: "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Oct 2009 21:30:17 GMT
=?Utf-8?B?bWlub2ZpZmE=?= <minofifa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in news:849819F5-DAB5-4B0B-ACD1-55451A576784@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
I have been reading a bit about windows server 2008 but it seems
to me that a lot of the functions it provides can be more easily
implemented using a sophisticated router. Our project is small so
things like DNS, WINS, DHCP etc are overkill.
Um, you may not need a dedicated Windows server to act as DNS, WINS
and DHCP server, but your workstations do need at least DNS, and if
you're using dynamically-assigned IP addresses, there has to be a
DHCP server.
In general, your router (not your Windows server) would provide the
DHCP services, and DNS would be provided for the Internet via the
router.
For a peer-to-peer LAN, if you have no local DNS or WINS server to
keep track of the names and IP addresses of the machines inside your
local LAN, you will have to enabled NETBIOS over TCP/IP. That is
not, I believe, the default setting any longer. What it does is use
broadcast packets to figure out which machine name correspondes to
each TCP/IP address. In a small office network with a proper
firewall (your router probably acts as firewall, and if you're using
Network Address Translation (i.e., NAT), your local addresses are
unroutable and can't be reached from outside your router, anyway),
NETBIOS over TCP/IP is OK.
Without the local DNS and WINS servers, you won't be able to use
machine names, and will instead have to use IP addresses for the
workstations to communicate with each other.
I am leaning towards a solution where the office computers
are connected with a single router, and one will act as a file
sever, providing access to my MS Access backend.
This sounds fine, as long as you have your NETBIOS over TCP/IP
setting correct.
This server would probably only
need to run Windows 7.
Why? It could run any version of Windows workstation. While Windows
7 is quite a nice workstation OS, I'm not sure that it is a better
server, so I see no reason to privilege it over any other version.
If I had a choice between WinXP, Vista and Windows 7, I'd probably
put them in this order of descending desirability to function as
peer-to-peer server:
1. WinXP
2. Windows 7
3. Vista
The reason for Vista coming in last is that it's less efficient than
Windows 7, and because it has had problems with certain new
networking settings (they got them right in Windows 7, though).
Also, you need to consider the speed of the workstation (more CPU
cycles is better), the amount of RAM (more is better), and the disk
storage (more is better, faster drives are better). So, you might
end up with a sub-optimal choice on OS because the hardware is much
better on the machine with the newer OS.
the server would also hold all of the office's excel
and word files (which would be accessed through the Access
application via separate front ends deployed on each user's
computer.
This sounds right.
However, keep in mind that it's not ideal to be using a workstation
as a peer-to-peer server, particularly if that workstation gets
heavy use.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
.
- References:
- Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- From: minofifa
- Re: Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- From: Arvin Meyer [MVP]
- Re: Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- From: minofifa
- Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- Prev by Date: Re: How do I set up Diagnostic centre Management database?
- Next by Date: using sequential numbers for documents
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Access Support Concurrent Users?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Access Support Concurrent Users? [OT]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
