Correct home for access dbases...

[wrentham636]

My first post here, I searched this site and didn't find anything related.

We're a growing medical organization in the northeast. Our file/print server at our corp headquarters has over the years become home to several really large access dbases. What we'd like to do is free up space on these servers by moving the databases somewhere (anywhere else really). We plan to spinup a new VMware server to house these dbases specifically. Any best practices you folks can suggest to best do this in a way that makes the best sense.

Much appreciated!

[ItsMe]

I would use the "Linked Table Manager" and tick the "Always Prompt for New Location" option before distributing the revised FE file to the clients.

[wrentham636]

My first post here, I searched this site and didn't find anything related.

We're a growing medical organization in the northeast. Our file/print server at our corp headquarters has over the years become home to several really large access dbases. What we'd like to do is free up space on these servers by moving the databases somewhere (anywhere else really). We plan to spinup a new VMware server to house these dbases specifically. Any best practices you folks can suggest to best do this in a way that makes the best sense.

Much appreciated!

I guess my main question is, is it a good idea to build a server dedicated to house all Access databases in our organization and, how many 1-2GB databases could I run simultaneously? Thanks again for your reply.

[wrentham636]

ItsMe, Thanks for the reply but I don't see how this relates to my question.

[ItsMe]

A file server should not have an issue serving clients access to multiple accdb or mdb files. If there was a single accdb file that was 1.5 GB or larger I would be more concerned about that than how many files I had on a file server.

Most of the processing and memory needs associated with using Access are the client machine's burden. The exception to this rule is when the accdb files uses the newer enhanced features available to table objects and or the server is employing IIS and or SharePoint features.

You would have to monitor the server and I would also consider packet sniffing to analyze network infrastructure to help detect bottlenecks.

[wrentham636]

A file server should not have an issue serving clients access to multiple accdb or mdb files. If there was a single accdb file that was 1.5 GB or larger I would be more concerned about that than how many files I had on a file server.

Most of the processing and memory needs associated with using Access are the client machine's burden. The exception to this rule is when the accdb files uses the newer enhanced features available to table objects and or the server is employing IIS and or SharePoint features.

You would have to monitor the server and I would also consider packet sniffing to analyze network infrastructure to help detect bottlenecks.

Thanks very much, and thanks for redirecting where we should be looking. We don't have a good listing of these access databases to this point although looking at database size is easy. so many groups in our organization have created these databases on their own, hard to track them all. Thanks again!

[ItsMe]

Let us know if you have any questions. My recommendation would be to get a handle on the data via a Data Management Group/Department. Reporting and compliance issues can be problematic when data is stored among many desktop apps. Additionally, I would question why an accdb or mdb file is near 1GB in size. A large file may be an indication of Non-Normalized data structure. If a DB is not Normalized, it is not manageable.