Joseph O'Connell
joconnell at indy.rr.com
Wed Feb 19 14:40:00 CST 2003
Judy, We are running a dual processor Compaq server with 512mb of memory. Another question. Why Citrix instead of Terminal Server? Are there specific features of Citrix that the IT department wants to use? Joe O'Connell joconnell at indy.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: Judy Johnson <jjwrite at earthlink.net> To: Joseph O'Connell <joconnell at indy.rr.com> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [AccessD] Citrix |Joseph - Thanks for the information. How much memory do you have? | |Each remote site is totally independent of the others but do have the |capability to access each others work via a logon ID and relinker that I've |built into the application. | |I do not want to go Citrix. Our system is working just fine as is, response |time is wonderful, even for the dialup folks. It's the IT organization that |is pushing this "consolidation". They want to "bundle it in with the XP |roll out. I'm trying to provide meaningful, financially sound reasons to |simply convert to XP and leave things as is until we go SQL server in two |years (which is what their next logical step is). | | |> [Original Message] |> From: Joseph O'Connell <joconnell at indy.rr.com> |> To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> | > Date: 2/19/03 2:02:39 PM |> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Citrix |> |> Judy, |> |> I have over 300 users (limit of 30 simultaneous users) that use an Access |> 2000 application on Citrix. All users are remote and use an internet |> connection. There are no problems, but response time is noticablly slower |> when there are more than 25 concurrent users. Adding memory should |resolve |> that issue. |> |> Is the database in each office independent of the database in the other |> offices (except for the one aggregate)? If they are, then why would you |> want to consolidate the processing on a central server? |> |> Joe O'Connell |> joconnell at indy.rr.com |> |> -----Original Message----- |> From: Judy Johnson <jjwrite at earthlink.net> |> To: AccessD <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> |> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:40 PM |> Subject: [AccessD] Citrix |> |> |> |> Hi Group - I sent this same request out last February as the issue to |> use Citrix came up at that time. The client decided it was not a viable |> solution. |> |> New players, getting ready to roll out Office XP, they now want to |look |> at Citrix as a solution again. Could I have your thoughts? |> This is our situation: |> a.. 6 offices within the continental US. |> b.. 40-50 users. Each office has their own local NT server. Users |> are not evenly distributed (some offices have 2, others have a dozen). We |> also have about 6 users who work from their homes, most using dial-up. |> c.. There are two areas within the organization, each has their |own |> application. The "applications" are currently running in A97. I've |converted |> a test copy to XP and they work fine - no reprogramming was necessary. The |> FEs reside on the user's PC. They are used for data entry and reporting. |> (The last FE update was in October 2002 - very low maintenance FE). The |data |> is located in an mdb on each local server. All servers are linked through |> NT. One location requires access to all files so a program was written to |> create an Aggregate copy of all data for reporting purposes. The |"Aggregate |> download" is performed on a monthly basis for Aggregate reporting only. |> d.. The users also commonly cut & paste from a web based reference |> manual into a comments field within the data entry form. |> The company is anticipating a 2 year window for roll out of XP and are |> concerned about having 2 versions of the FE (A97 and XP). My |recommendations |> is to leave the data mdb in A97 until everyone has XP, then we'd convert |the |> data. I've tested data entry from XP to the A97 and it works fine. |Frankly, |> I don't see how the benefit of Citrix can possibly outweigh it's cost. |Does |> anyone "see" something I may be missing? |> |> Am I correct in understanding that a dedicated server is required? I'm |> being told no fail over is required. I believe that means all of my users |> will be on the same server, with their FE sitting on the server. If the |> server goes down - everyone will be down. But my bigger concern is |response |> time! We're talking 30-40 concurrent Access users doing data entry and |major |> report generation. Does anyone have any idea how I can realistically test |> this scenario? The IT folks are offering a test environment next week. |> Thanks for your input. |> |> Judy Johnson |> jjwrite at earthlink.net |> |> |> _______________________________________________ |> AccessD mailing list |> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com |> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd |> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com | | |Judy Johnson |jjwrite at earthlink.net | |