File-server optimization

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

FPS, Romney - 11 Dec 2007 13:11 GMT

We've been using a split-database setup on a Lan with one of the users'
computer acting as the file-server (the BE is stored on their machine).
We're moving to a new location and I'm wondering if there's any value in
having a separate computer not used by any user and dedicated solely as the
file-server.

I know that one value would be that it reduces the worry that the user who
uses the file-server as their workstation forgets and decides to reboot
without checking whether anyone else is using the database. (Fortunately,
the user on the file-server is pretty conscientious about this).

Beyond that, however, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of resource
issue -- does whatever the user is doing on the file-server affect available
resources for database operations across the network (or pose other risks to
database integrity)? Is it the router that actually does all the work in
transferring data back and forth?

Our current setup works fine; reports, forms, etc. load quickly across the
network regardless of whatever the user on the file-server is doing
(including their own database operations).

If databases, computers, etc. was my main job I would probably try to learn
and switch to sql server. But for now, I would like to stay with our
file-server setup.

Thanks for any insight into this issue.
Mark

Reply to this Message

Tony Toews [MVP] - 13 Dec 2007 01:07 GMT

>Beyond that, however, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of resource
>issue -- does whatever the user is doing on the file-server affect available
>resources for database operations across the network (or pose other risks to
>database integrity)? Is it the router that actually does all the work in
>transferring data back and forth?

That's not a big deal because I suspect you have a small network with
less then ten or more likely less than five users. As far as I know
Windows XP will only allow a maximum of ten network connections to a
system. And having a printer on that same computer could affect that
count. Although I sure could be wrong.

Once you hit that limit then you'll have to go to a server of some
sort.

Tony

Signature

Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

Reply to this Message

FPS, Romney - 13 Dec 2007 10:46 GMT

Thanks Tony for the info.
I hadn't even considered that there was a user limit for Windows XP. Our
current network includes a network printer, not directly connected to the
file-server. Ten users, plus the network printer has probably been the
maximum we've ever had at one time on our current system. Most of the users
log on using the same Username/Password. We're moving and want the option of
having probably a maximum of 15 users at a time.
Question (dumb question?): If four (4) users log onto the network using the
same Username/Password, does that take up 4 of the 10 users permitted by XP,
or 1?
Question (silly): If we get a server, will I have to learn "Vista"; can I
use my old Windows 3.11 disks instead?

> >Beyond that, however, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of resource
> >issue -- does whatever the user is doing on the file-server affect available
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Tony

Reply to this Message

Tony Toews [MVP] - 13 Dec 2007 18:50 GMT

>Question (dumb question?): If four (4) users log onto the network using the
>same Username/Password, does that take up 4 of the 10 users permitted by XP,
>or 1?

As far as I know it's based on connections. And has nothing to do
with users.

>Question (silly): If we get a server, will I have to learn "Vista"; can I
>use my old Windows 3.11 disks instead?

Presumably you meant Windows For Workgroups 3.11. <shudder> Umm, I
wouldn't suggest using that OS these days as it is horribly insecure.
And will cause you all kinds of grief with folder names limited to 8
characters or whatever. And so on and so forth.

Tony

Signature

Reply to this Message

david - 18 Dec 2007 05:31 GMT

> Question (silly): If we get a server, will I have to learn "Vista"; can I
> use my old Windows 3.11 disks instead?

Neither. You would get MS Small Business Server 2003.
Which is like Windows XP, only it takes longer to set up,
so you would get it pre-installed.

But since you aren't used to server administration, learning
that will be just as hard as learning Vista.

(david)

> Thanks Tony for the info.
> I hadn't even considered that there was a user limit for Windows XP. Our
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>
>> Tony

Reply to this Message

FPS, Romney - 18 Dec 2007 19:07 GMT

Thank you, David

> > Question (silly): If we get a server, will I have to learn "Vista"; can I
> > use my old Windows 3.11 disks instead?
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> >>
> >> Tony

Reply to this Message

FPS, Romney - 13 Dec 2007 10:58 GMT

Tony,
I think a better way of phrasing my original question might be to ask
whether the host computer of a shared file on a network does any of the work
when other users read/write to that shared folder -- or is this handled
entirely by the router?
Mark

> >Beyond that, however, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of resource
> >issue -- does whatever the user is doing on the file-server affect available
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Tony

Reply to this Message

Tony Toews [MVP] - 13 Dec 2007 18:52 GMT

>I think a better way of phrasing my original question might be to ask
>whether the host computer of a shared file on a network does any of the work
>when other users read/write to that shared folder -- or is this handled
>entirely by the router?

The host computer is doing a lot of the work as is the client. The
router/switch/hub is only passing packets.

Tony

Signature

Reply to this Message