[AccessD] Weakest Link

...yes he can run multiple nics, but why the extra h/w ...you can run
multiple subnets off the same NT nic ...and he can certainly run multiple
co-located servers with one be without replication :(

...your real issue appears to be db performance ...assuming he's already
running a 100Mb Ethernet and has no nic/cabling problems, then your real
answer lies in a server upgrade of one sort or another.

...personally I'd persuade him to upgrade to W2K Server OS with a minimum of
1Gb of ram, the more the merrier ...the server h/w, other than the ram is
not as critical as the server os ime unless his HDs are prehistoric ...W2K
Server runs circles around NT, especially in reliability, and NT support is
going away ...and if he has about $8-10K to spend I'd persuade him to go
with a new Dell server with a 25 cal SBS2K OS which includes SQL Server
...plus a free upgrade to W2003 Server (only AFTER the first SP though).

...given the costs involved in the different approaches, his TOC bottom line
is going to be lower with a new server since his maintenance costs will drop
dramatically with the W2K Server vs NT, even on essentially the same box
assuming its not stone aged ...plus you could immediately give him the
benefits of a SQL Server be.

William Hindman
<http://www.freestateproject.org> - Next Year In The Free State!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Colby" <jcolby at colbyconsulting.com>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: [AccessD] Weakest Link


> I have a client running about 25 Access FEs against an MDB BE.  He has a
> single server, and of course must use a single server at least for the BE
if
> we don't get into replication.  The server is Windows NT, not even 2K.  He
> just expanded into another wing of the building they rent and are going to
> move one unit of the business (and database) into that wing.  Can he run
> multiple NICS in Windows NT?  That would allow him to put a switch (or
> router) on what would essentially be two different LANs.  They don't
really
> have any inter workstation traffic so this would probably work if NT can
> deal with more than one NIC.  I know that they have (or had) bandwidth
> issues because when they replaced a hub with a switch awhile back the
> performance of the db improved.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Erwin Craps
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 3:36 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: Wireless network (sort of)
>
>
> The weakest link in a network will decide the bandwith.
>
> If you only have one server all trafic goes to and comes from one link.
> If that link is the same speed as the clients link a switch is of no
> use. You gonna have a bottleneck.
>
> Again, switch are very good but you must have a different server speed
> link OR multiple servers. By that your bandwith gets divided over
> multiple or higer speed links.
>
> Switches are useles (for reaons of speed) in a single server and only 1
> speed link.
>
> It's a basic rule of a switch!!!
>
> Erwin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com