[AccessD] Replication - A2K

I'll have to brush up on the terminology again.  Indirect being dropping
"files" into a shared directory, as opposed to trying to actually perform
the replication "live" into the BE?

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting
www.ColbyConsulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of David Emerson
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:08 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Replication - A2K


John,

I have had experiences with two replicated databases.  One on a local lan, 
the other replicating via dial up network.  Both in A97.  According to 
Arthur, A2K (Jet 4) is more stable.

My main experience on the lan was that the database corrupted 
frequently.  All the research I could find pinned it down to a faulty 
network but I am not a network techo so I had to leave it to the IT 
department.  Eventually we ended up converting to SQL.  However, the 
corruptions were due to the BE being on a server.  In your case if the BE 
is on the local machines (and the users don't need up to date information) 
then indirect synchronization should work fine (as opposed to direct 
synchronization - fewer opportunities for corruption across the network.

Regards

David Emerson
DALYN Software Ltd
25b Cunliffe St, Johnsonville
Wellington, New Zealand
Ph/Fax (877) 456-1205
At 27/03/2003, you wrote:
>I need any info / experiences anyone can share re replication.  My
insurance
>client has a functioning database now that is SLOOOOOooooow.  They came
from
>a "flat file" where they had basically a single table with 125+ fields to a
>fully relational FE/BE with of course much expanded functionality - and of
>course the speed isn't anywhere close to the same as the old.  No matter
how
>you explain, the user doesn't know what goes on behind the scenes, and
>doesn't care.  All they know is that it is slower.  Plus they are adding
>more employees (up to about 25 now from under 20 when I started the
>project - and still climbing).
>
>They will probably go to SQl Server someday but now is not the time
(money).
>I have been discussing options with them and explained to the tech contact
>the idea behind replication.  He has been running a FE / BE development
copy
>of the db on his desktop and it is about twice as fast.  Therefore he
thinks
>that replication might solve their speed issues for the short term (for a
>year or so) until such time as they could make the move to SQL Server.
>
>So I need info.  I have done replication one time, just on my own system,
>just to see how it worked - and that was a long time ago.  So I need to
>start a thread with anyone who has current experience on how to set it up,
>what is involved, any good reference material to read, would it work to
>merge the BE/FE back in and also replicate design changes, etc.
>
>Anyone with info out there?
>
>Thanks,
>
>John W. Colby
>Colby Consulting
>www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Is email taking over your day?  Manage your time with eMailBoss.
>Try it free!  http://www.eMailBoss.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AccessD mailing list
>AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



----------------------------------------------------
Is email taking over your day?  Manage your time with eMailBoss.  
Try it free!  http://www.eMailBoss.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://databaseadvisors.com/pipermail/accessd/attachments/20030327/a10753db/attachment-0001.bin>