Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Wed May 16 17:14:34 CDT 2007
Hi Steve: That sure is a pretty application. If going down is a concern some site can provide a fail-over scenario. When the DNS is setup one zone would point to one host and other zone point to another host. Each would have a synchronized data set. The Zone managers are multiple sites as well. Sounds like a very workable system. Jim -----Original Message----- From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Steve Erbach Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:56 AM To: SQLList Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upsizing and consolidating Access data into SQL Server Dear Group, I've been the chief designer for a vertical market application that was created with Microsoft Access 2003. The application has been installed in a handful of locations around the country, some single-user, some multi-user. The man who markets and owns the application would like to convert it to a centralized web-based application. To keep the cost of maintenance and upgrades to a minimum I have suggested that rather than creating a separate SQL Server database for each customer installation of the product, every customer currently using the Access product would append his data to a "master" set of tables in one database on one SQL Server. The upshot would be that each company would have its own ID and the transactions and products specific to each company would be tagged with that ID. (There are certain tables that could be shared in common...certain lists of items common to all customers). Each company would use Views, etc., that show just its own data. None of this data is proprietary or particularly sensitive (it's hazmat record-keeping). Just for a quick look at the current app: http://www.swerbach.com/EnviroPlus/ . The SQL Server capability would be rented from one of the commercial web hosts. The volume of data is actually quite small. We're talking maybe 5 MB in Access for a couple years worth of information for each company. Of course, if the server goes down then everybody goes down. But the positives, I think, would be ease of upgrading, keeping everybody at the same revision level simultaneously, and low cost. Do you see any flies in the ointment here? I think it's very feasible, but I'd welcome any cautioning voices. Sincerely, Steven W. Erbach Neenah, WI http://thetowncrank.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com