Drew Wutka
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Tue Apr 29 13:43:14 CDT 2003
I see. Well, you know what they say....'Whatever works, works!' <grin> Drew -----Original Message----- From: Gustav Brock [mailto:gustav at cactus.dk] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:42 AM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [Accessd] FE/BE on server vs FE on workstation/BE on server? Hi Drew > Do you have problem 'copying' a new version over a live front end? Or are > these 'day time' databases, and the copy goes over at night? No, they are rarely updated and not in continuous use so that's not a problem. > I would still think that a batch process, to copy a new local FE from a > network source would be less of a network drain in the long run...after it > is used several times. Sure but as noted, the added network traffic is negligible. It just isn't worth the trouble to haunt down that traffic. /gustav > First, the FE doesn't have to be in the same network location as the > BE. > We use it quite a lot as we have dozens of customized apps running at > clients. Copies of these apps and their test data are kept on a local > file server in clients' directories with access for the support > people. In this way these can open the exact app that any client uses > from whatever workstation. If a revised version is delivered to a > client, a fresh copy is placed on the file server as well. It would be > an impossible job to have these copied to each and every workstation. > The added network traffic is negligible. > About the modification of a live database we just don't do that > whether it should be possible or not. > /gustav >> So tell me, other then the only obvious advantage I can think of, what >> earthly advantage is there in having a FE in the same network location as >> a >> BE? The only advantage I can think of is that it allows for slightly >> easier >> modification of the FE, since a new copy can be put into place, without >> having to worry about the data in the BE. However that really isn't an >> issue with 97, because 97 allows for modification of practically anything, >> as long as it's not in use (not the whole database). >> Drew >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gustav Brock [mailto:gustav at cactus.dk] >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 3:38 AM >> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com >> Subject: Re: [Accessd] FE/BE on server vs FE on workstation/BE on >> server? >> Hi Drew >>> eh? >> eh?? You're normally not that dense - or have you again being working >> all night ... what I mean is, of course, that putting the FE on the >> server has nothing to do with not splitting the database. If you take >> your precautions and the FE is nice and doesn't write to itself it can >> be perfectly safe to run it this way. >> /gustav >>>> Putting the FE on the server is just like not splitting the FE to begin >>>> with. That's about it, in a nutshell. >>> Ahh ... if so it doesn't fit in that nutshell. _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com