Multiuser Access Solutions?

[GaryE]

I am developing a multiuser Access application (120 users) and have concerns about performance. My company uses SQL and Oracle databaases but we do not have access to these resources! (It's an IT thing!) We do have access to SharePoint.
My question is; would using Access as the front end and SharePoint as the backend provide any performance advantage?

Thanks....

[orange]

If your company has DBA support for Oracle and SQL, why would you build an Access database for 120 users?

I could see Access for some users -- up to 20. I haven't used Sharepoint and know nothing about it. It may be an option, but I'm surprised a 120 person multi user database app is being considered in Access, when you already have Oracle and SQL.

I don't know what this means

we do not have access to these resources!

.

What sort of management standards and practices do you have? If your business commercially viable, I have to think management still makes some decisions.

I worked for many years in corporate database and there was always a review of new applications - especially those involving 120 users. And we did have Access in local groups. Any corporate data that a local group needed was either downloaded as a Point in Time (month end/quarter end database) or linked with some restrictions.

[GaryE]

120 is a relatively small group within this organization! MS Access has been removed from all user PC's. It requires a special approval to use Access for the development of any applications... regardless of the size.
Because this company has both Oracle and SQL doesn't mean IT grants access to any type of resource you might want! Again, this is a very large company with very sensitive data and very tight security. If SQL or Oracle were available to me i would most definitely make use of one of them for the backend of this Access application. Access is being considered as the GUI because 1.) It is easy to use 2.)It goes together quickly and 3.) It’s what I know!

[orange]

I hear you. But my questions were more about the data management/information management practices/standards of the organization. Most companies (and definitely not all) that have a business need for an application/a system/access to a database/ a summary data base for forecasting/sales analyses etc have a process to bring such needs forward. To get those requirements identified and positioned within other "key activities" in some sort of rationalization process. If such a process exists, and the powers to be are those to approve development with appropriate human, technical and financial resource, then if it's important it should get the go ahead. If it's deemed small potatoes, and solve it as best you can, then you have you have your answer.

You have NOT indicated why the decision to move forward, or the choice of hardware/software is based on what you know.

You can certainly design a database that will do what you need, and interface with any corporate data currently "unavailable" to you. Lots of organizations make plans and expound the benefits of certain processes; standards and procedures; managing information as a resource just like finances. Perhaps a strategy to show some of the benefits of your 120 employees having timely access to the data you mention, and a map of how to achieve same would be in your interest. If you can show your boss/manager why it is important based on employees affected; better decision making; fewer screw-ups or whatever, that would be a start. Make it sound/feel that it's something the manager needs/should be looking at or another set of relevant factors, and make it something he needs. You can plan and logically design it, with implementing it. If your plan is logical enough with enough scope, it could be implemented in stages.

Trying to do this sort of thing on your own with no management commitment, no resources, no authority basically, no support from your manager and still have all the responsibility on you seems a pretty lousy situation to me.

I've been there. It's like pushing a rope -with everyone watching. Get to understand the underlying management approach; look for an opportunity. We merged government departments; several grants and contributions systems were being subsumed by an act of government. What an opportunity to cement an information resource management approach; to establish hardware and systems priorities; to set up corporate databases and corporate data management; to establish and train the technical and security personnel.....

Just some thoughts to ponder.

[R_Badger]

I am currently running an access database, with around 80 total users (approximately 60 concurrent) on the largest distribution.

I say distribution, as it is currently running in two locations, with a centralised table set for each location. I did this as although they are interconnected by a WAN, the WAN connection is only approximately 8Mb/s.

My company operates a sharepoint server (oddly located at neither site I work with), and I discounted that as an acceptable solution due to the WAN issues I stated above. I instead just split it on the local fileserver at each location.

My biggest problem has been the file server performance, (it doesn't help that nothing is held on the local machine so even the 'local' front end is running remotely, albeit on different places to try to prevent hdd hot spotting).

My advice knowing that the ideal world never comes unless you write it yourself in some environments, is to do a dummy load test; You could open several database instances per client, and use vb get them to do dummy data inserts, edits deletes etc.

I have had the same problem, I had no access to an SQL server despite the company having several. However after 18 Months of running the database, and the data within being used to win a new 5 year contract, I have recently been promised squatting place on an SQL server! (Whether this appears or not is another thing)

Sorry for deviating a little but I thought a bit of background from what I have done may help a little