 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / SQL Server / ADP / May 2008Moving to MS SQL
Hi I am a Network Admin (not a programmer) who started creating a Company DB programs with Access. I want to be proactive and understand why and when I should consider moving from MS Access to MS SQL. Can somebody tell me what limitations Access has? When I should be ready move my Access DB programms to MS SQL? Thank you in advance, Alex There's a lot of different criteria that you could use to decide when to move, but I think probably two things come to mind as being the most important (though I'm sure others will add more and/or disagree...you know how it goes <g>). Easily the biggest thing is the question of how many users will be accessing the database simultaneously. Access slows down tremendously when multiple users are using a database at the same time, more with every user. If you've got more than a handful of users, it's probably time to consider migrating. The second consideration is the size of your tables. The exact amount will vary depending on the nature of your tables and you query-design skills, but typically if you've got more than a few hundred thousand rows in any given table (less if you're sharing this on a network), you should consider migrating to SQL Server. Along with the above, Access has a file size limit of 2 Gig (or at least it did in MDB format; I'm not sure about the new ACCDB format). So if you're approaching that size, even after running a "Compact & Repair", it's definitely time to consider migration. Rob > Hi I am a Network Admin (not a programmer) who started creating a Company DB > programs with Access. I want to be proactive and understand why and when I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Alex Thank you Robert. > There's a lot of different criteria that you could use to decide when to > move, but I think probably two things come to mind as being the most [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> Alex One additional major point is security: SQL Server can be much more secure than an Access db. Workgroup security and database password (the only options in Access) are toys compared with what SQL Server can do. Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007, most likely because the company realized it was never very secure. Another one is availability. Access databases corrupt. It may take a while, but your day will come. At that time you better have a good backup or else... SQL Server databases don't corrupt. They can get messed up if for example you're putting the db on a single drive and it develops a bad spot or a disk crash, but then you'll be looking for another job for not putting it on semi-indestructible RAID5. Availability also has other aspects, such as redundancy, database farm, scale up, scale out, just to name a few keywords. Hardware costs go up rapidly for those solutions though. -Tom. >There's a lot of different criteria that you could use to decide when to >move, but I think probably two things come to mind as being the most [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> Alex when I worked at MSN we had a strict policy against RAID5. Personally-- I thnk that RAID5 should be reliable enough. On the other hand-- www.tomshardware.com had an article once upon a time about RAID6. but most companies-- with a siliver spoon in hand (I'm referring to MS) just use RAID 1 + 0. -Aaron > On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:51:54 -0400, Robert Morley > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007 No it wasn't.  SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ yes, it was. Workgroup security is not present in version 2007. -Aaron On May 14, 6:35 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: > > Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ Well, I meant for the new accdb file format. If you are using mdb it is indeed still supported. -Tom. >> Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007 > >No it wasn't. >>> Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007 >> >>No it wasn't. > > Well, I meant for the new accdb file format. If you are using mdb > it is indeed still supported. Well, please say what you mean -- there is an awful lot of misinformation out there from people making blanket statements about what A2K7 does not "support". I have to deal with them all the time precisely because of that lack of specificity. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ look buddy-- Access MDB is dead; it has been for a decade. Anyone that is using it should be out of a job. I'd stop running around jerking off to images of 'jet replication' and 'workgroup security'-- it's just not there; it's not usable, it's not reliable. And it's not in Access 2007. -Aaron On May 15, 10:54 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> Workgroup security was dropped by MSFT in version 2007 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ Pretty strong language. This is by no means settled and certainly not as you suggest. Consider the fullness of the following link and links from it. http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic440468-131-1.aspx#bm502356 You must be a member - free - to read. Bottom Line, MS said it was settled about 8 years ago, but has since unsettled it. That link will take you to LONG threads from last summer, last winter and today. I'm not saying or hinting that workgroup security in JET is preferable to SQL security. However, MDB/DAO being buried by ADP/ADO is a different story. Advise to be careful and specific --------------------------------------------------- >look buddy-- Access MDB is dead; it has been for a decade. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ >> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > I'd stop running around jerking off to images of 'jet replication' > and 'workgroup security'-- it's just not there; it's not usable, > it's not reliable. > > And it's not in Access 2007. Yes, it is, you moron. Why do you insist on posting things that are transparently false? It makes you look even more idiotic than you already do with your one-size-fits-all "SQL Server is the answer" posts. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.