[AccessD] Weakest Link

****inline :)

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 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Weakest Link


> William,
>
> >...yes he can run multiple nics, but why the extra h/w ...you can run
> multiple subnets off the same NT nic
>
> In the end the bandwidth at the connector of the NIC is 100 mbits.  Two
NICS
> means TWO 100 mbit networks, not one 100 mbit lan.

****and you think an NT server can service two 100Mb nets any faster?
>
> >and he can certainly run multiple co-located servers with one be without
> replication
>
> What the hell is a co-located server?  There is an MDB that all 25
> workstations are trying to get data out of, a single file.

****one server doing OS functions while a co-located one works as the file
server with most of its processor and memory dedicated to servicing your be.
>
> >...your real issue appears to be db performance
>
> This is absolutely true.  They want to so some stuff that just pulls a lot
> of data however, and in this kind of situation a lot of data is a lot of
> bandwidth times a lot of users.

****hard to believe that a 100Mb lan is b/w limited w/25 users regardless of
the db demands ...the real limit is almost always in the processor, memory,
and/or HD access ...none of which are affected by how many nics you are
using ...by your theory, I could just add a nic any old time I needed to
speed things up :)
William
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of William
> Hindman
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:57 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com