Done properly, replication is solid. Done improperly, it will lead to
frustration.

The first consideration is how will you synchronize between the two
sites? Using a floppy, zips, email, USB, or any other method that
involves physically moving the file is not allowed. You must have a
network connection between the two sites. Dialup and RAS is
acceptable. Moving a notebook computer between the two sites and
physically connecting it to the original network is acceptable from
the replication perspective, but it may not be feasible in your
situation.

Second consideration: WAN connections are not sufficient for direct
synchronization. Instead, it is highly recommended to use Indirect
Sync which is supported by Replication Manager, a component of the
Developer's Edition of the particular version of Access that you use.
If you use Indirect sync, then each "hub" must be able to "see" a
dropbox folder on the opposite site.

Third: if your situation does not satisfy point #2, then you can also
use Internet Synchronization, which is also supported by Replication
Manager. Apparently (no personal experience), it is more finicky to
set up and get working than Indirect Synchronization.

Fourth: if you have used Autonumbers for keyfields in your database
design, and you rely on the value of the Autonumbers to convey
human-readable content (e.g. invoice numbers), then you will have a
rude shock when Access starts using Random numbers instead of
Sequential numbers.

Hope this helps. Post back if you have more specific questions.

**********************
jackmacMACdonald@telusTELUS.net
remove uppercase letters for true email
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonmacd/ for info on MS Access security

Q1) Perfectly reliable as long as your replication method is appropriate.
eg. In your case the remote machine to use indirect replication or internet
replication rather than direct.
Q2) No risk at all as long as you a) research MS Access replication and
learn what's involved and b) test it first.
Q3) Yep
Q4) Network quality, Office 2000 Developer's Edition.

For what it's worth and what it's made for, Access is a top little tool that
I've pushed beyond the normal running environment and other than running a
little slow in some places (strangely it's when I combine SqlServer 2000 and
the medium to large Access tables), works perfectly 24x7. I have a mixture
of replicated, non-replicated databases, SqlServer and MySQL databases
referenced together in multiple front ends, with the replicated databases
replicating up to 100,000 records in a session (time wise: up to 1 hour per
each client direct replication) and the non-replicated databases storing
500,000 records or 750Meg of data. People complain about it being limited to
2Gig, memory and network hog, but if they remember what it has been designed
and made for, then they realise that it's a little gem.

We have a Access 2002 split client/server database that has 5 networked
client machines.  It's a medium sized database of 30 tables and 30,000
records.  At present, our system is 24x7, and has been very reliable.

We are considering replication for a 6th machine that is in a remote
location (not on our network).  We would continue to have the 5
networked clients in a client/server environment, we'd just have the one
machine syncing with replication.

I worry, that by adding replication into the mix, we might be risking
the reliability of our present system.  How reliable is a database once
it is replicated?  How risky is this move?  Does it still perform as
flawlessly as a split database?  Are there any issues I should research
before I take this leap?

Thank you VERY much in advance for your help.

   - David Kistner