Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    winginit is offline Novice
    Windows XP Access 2007
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9

    Is running Access 2007 on a peer to peer network (2-3 users at most) a bad idea ?

    A true "server" seems like overkill in terms of expense, not to mention I wouldn't know how to configure or manage a network. My client PCs are all Win 7 Pro. My access database is split, so I would put the backend on the server and each workstation would run the front end natively (if that's the correct use of the term). If anyone could share their thoughts on this I would be most grateful

  2. #2
    CJ_London is online now VIP
    Windows 10 Access 2010 32bit
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11,397
    A server is just a computer, simplistically modified to have more I/o ports and more data storage with a more dynamic method of reading and writing data.

    On a peer to peer network, any computer can act as a server, it just wont be as efficient on sending and receiving data. As with a server it needs to be on all the time and ideally not used for any other purpose except perhaps as a print server. Any db should be split front and backend and each user should have their own copy of the front end on their machine.

    If one of the users is also 'host' to the back end, you may have some additional complexity with linking to the back end - all the other users will be linking via a mapped drive - so the host will also need to create a mapped drive to his own machine, otherwise his/her front end will have a different linking configuration to everyone else

    For purposes of efficiency, map the folder in which the backend resides (ideally a folder to host just the back end) rather than the whole disk to keep the path as short as possible.

  3. #3
    winginit is offline Novice
    Windows XP Access 2007
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajax View Post
    A server is just a computer, simplistically modified to have more I/o ports and more data storage with a more dynamic method of reading and writing data.

    On a peer to peer network, any computer can act as a server, it just wont be as efficient on sending and receiving data. As with a server it needs to be on all the time and ideally not used for any other purpose except perhaps as a print server. Any db should be split front and backend and each user should have their own copy of the front end on their machine.

    If one of the users is also 'host' to the back end, you may have some additional complexity with linking to the back end - all the other users will be linking via a mapped drive - so the host will also need to create a mapped drive to his own machine, otherwise his/her front end will have a different linking configuration to everyone else

    For purposes of efficiency, map the folder in which the backend resides (ideally a folder to host just the back end) rather than the whole disk to keep the path as short as possible.
    Thanks for you response. I appreciate it!

    The 'server' would be both a file server and a print server is what I had in mind. Each user would have their own copy of the front end, probably as an .accde. That's good to know that I should not map the whole disk but just the folder with the backend.

    I didn't mention this in my original question, but although I would be directly connected to the server, the 2 other users would be connecting via gotomypc--each to their respective client machines running their resepective front ends. In theory, the remote part of this setup shouldn't matter, right? I'm just wondering if there could be latency or delays that could cause record locking conflicts, write errors, and consequently record or database corruption.

  4. #4
    CJ_London is online now VIP
    Windows 10 Access 2010 32bit
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11,397
    I'm not familiar with gotomypic - if it is the equivalent of Teamviewer/Jump etc - I.e. a remote connection, then all that is transmitted is screen changes one way and mouse/keyboard events the other - so the front end needs to be on the client machine, not the remote one. So effectively runs as if they are in the office and not out and about. If there is a disconnection, the client machine should keep running so when the user connects again it is as if they have just nipped out for a coffee - but you should guard against timeouts which may cause the client machine to close/logout, depends on the settings. There should not be any latency/record locking conflicts unless the user leaves the client machine in a 'locked record state' either by terminating the connection themselves or by an interruption in the connection itself. Where connection speeds are slow, users can expect a small latency between hitting a key and their screen being repainted.

    I use Jump when I'm out and about and can connect my tablet to my office machine to demo software etc. and the only time I've experience problems is when the connection is slow - usually in some wifi hotspot when the bandwidth is shared too thinly. I use Jump because it better mimics the touchscreen experience on my tablet, other providers may have caught up since I did my original investigations but don't feel the need to review at this time.

    Certainly remote connection provides a much faster experience than a VPN connection, but requires a client machine - which incidentally should be hard wired to the network, not wireless. Wireless glitches can cause corruption

  5. #5
    winginit is offline Novice
    Windows XP Access 2007
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9
    I was intending to have the client hard wired to the network just on my vague sense that it would be less prone to problems, or "glitches" as you put it. The fact that such glitches might cause corruption is good to know.

    Also helpful point you raise is the possibility (which I hadn't thought of) where a user leaves the client machine in a locked record state, such as beginning to edit a record but not committing the changes before they go walk the dog or whatever. Now that I am aware of that possibility, it should be easy enough to control with an automatic save on a timer, or something like that.

    Thanks Ajax!

Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-19-2015, 01:15 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 12:17 PM
  3. Running Access for multiple users
    By itm in forum Access
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-08-2011, 08:29 AM
  4. Access 2007 crashes on the network
    By riit in forum Access
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-26-2009, 08:37 AM
  5. MS Access 2007 - network interruption issue
    By shsh_shah in forum Access
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Other Forums: Microsoft Office Forums