[AccessD] Re: OT: Corrupted database

Jim,

Personally, I do everything bound.  I have an Access 2 db that is still 
running with up to 80 concurrent users and a size of about 500 meg.  In 
every application I do, no one shares a FE db.  I have one attaching to SQL 
Server that the BE is about 1.5 gig.  One table is over 3/4 of a million 
records.  No problems.  I am currently working on moving it to an ADP and 
then to an ASP.NET application.

And, since when is Access not based on SQL technology????

Robert

At 02:52 AM 11/6/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:13 -0800
>From: "Jim Lawrence (AccessD)" <accessd at shaw.ca>
>Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: Corrupted database
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>         <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
>Message-ID: <NHBBIIELMLKIEHOOHNNFKEHLCPAA.accessd at shaw.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Hi John and Stuart:
>
>Not trying to re-kindle the bound/unbound debate but as most of my contracts
>are with the local provincial government and they have a specific rule. All
>databases with greater than ten users must be build on SQL technology. That
>technology extends to Oracle and sometime MS SQL and unbound forms.
>Therefore, I have little opportunity experiment with Access environments
>with a large user base. The closest I came to a significant bound Access
>database was a private client with just under twenty users but they moved
>their server to Linux and subsequently a MySQL BE.
>
>Maybe all these concerns with larger Access bound form applications, are
>part of a local urban legend, or Database companies and DBAs who wish to
>promote the myth to their own end but I for one have not had great memories
>with a couple of applications. Once burned...twice shy.
>
>My two cents worth
>Jim