Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sharing MS-Access Databases, Efficiently?

Posted by Cliff on from the doing-the-improbable dept.

codewizard asks: "Ours is a bank and we have a bunch of MS-Access databases(>50) which are being used by around 50 users around the globe on a daily basis. The set of databases are stored on a SAMBA share and each user accesses from the mapped drive. As expected, sharing conflicts arise and multiple users are unable to access at the same time. So, we proposed having multiple folders on SAMBA each of which would have all the databases and the users logon script would determine where their mapped drive points to. This led to synchronisation issues (when a change is required in one of the master databases, we need to manually synchronise all other folders) and increase in storage size in SAMBA. Anyone have any other ideas on how you would have gone about sharing these MS-Access databases?"

1 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. SQL Server instead of Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I will differ, and heartily suggest SQL Server 2000 instead. This is because:

    1. Microsoft provides an excellent upgrade path from Access to SQL Server, using Wizards to automate many of the "tedious details". You should be able to split your front-end forms / code from backend data, and move your backend data from Access to SQL Server with minimal coding.

    2. A SQL Server installation, IMHO, is much easier to install, setup, and maintain. This will be especially true for your situation, where you have a lot of small to moderate sized databases to maintain on what will probably be 1 - 2 Server boxes.

    3. You are likely to spend a lot less to buy SQL Server. Microsoft's SQL Server license for SQL Server has tended to be cheaper than Oracle. Also, you can use a PC "commodity" server with Windows 2000 / 2003, instead of the high-end "*NIX" boxes the Oracle people usually push on their customers.