Stuart Sanders
stuart at pacific.net.hk
Sun Nov 2 20:29:02 CST 2003
It is usually better to run some tests to see what is the weakest link before jumping to conclusions. NT, has a utility called perfmon (performance monitor) where you can set up and monitor various stats. Occasionally a simple memory upgrade may resolve performance issues where the server is paging continuously. What you really need to determine is whether it is the LAN or the server that is the main issue. If your network is constantly running maxed out, then maybe a second NIC is the answer. Though I agree with William that Win2K runs rings around winNT in terms of ease of maintenance. NT can also a right PITA for installing new gear. I've also set up win2k server for VPN service between a clients offices between here and Tokyo running on an old Pentium Pro with 96 MB of ram (they didn't want to spend the money on a new box, so a replaced fileserver got the job). After hacking out services to get the memory footprint down it hasn't had a hickup in over 6 months of use. Just goes to show that win2k can also run on older gear, though I'd not recommend that for a heavily used system. Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of > William Hindman > Sent: Monday, 03 November, 2003 1:30 AM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >