Gustav Brock
Gustav at cactus.dk
Tue Dec 21 11:40:15 CST 2010
Hi John Yes, I know that feeling. However, at zero or microscopic cost the client can't expect much, indeed not a reprogramming of parts of the frontend as would be needed if SPs etc. were to be implemented. My point is, that with ODBC very little has to be changed in the frontend, it will probably run at a speed that will surprise you, and installation of MySQL is quite easy - and should you run into problems, several of our fellow list members are quite experienced in this area; Arthur even wrote a book on the topic. /gustav >>> jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com 21-12-2010 18:20 >>> My problem there is that I have no experience with it. If I use SQL Server I would most likely be doing things like stored procedures returning recordsets etc and I haven't a clue how to do that (or anything else) in MySQL. The client already said "we don't have anyone that even knows how to spell SQL Server"... Of course MySQL is easier to spell. ;) John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com On 12/21/2010 12:12 PM, Gustav Brock wrote: > Hi John > >> This client is very cost conscious. > > Then MySQL 5.5 could be an option. Runs fine on Windows, zero cost, modest on ram, and with the ODBC driver it is close to a plug-and-play replacement for the Access BEs. > > /gustav > > >>>> jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com 21-12-2010 17:49>>> > Mark, > > To be honest I think that the express version will work fine. This client is very cost conscious. > they are using windows 2000 x32 on a quad core with 4 gigs of ram hosting the Access database BEs. > I have had to split the BEs into a handful of files because the total file size is pushing 2.5 gigs > of data. IOW this is pretty much beyond Access' ability to be the data store. > > So, I want to go to SQL Server. Express is fine however I just get the feeling that running it on a > Windows 2K x32 machine with only 4 gigs is going to cause headaches. So I am trying to discover > what the deal is for moving him to Windows 2003 or 2008 x64 so that we can get more memory in there. > > I seriously doubt that full on SQL Server Standard is required however I am dubious about running > even a single instance of express on the existing hardware / OS, and I really don't want to go there > only to find it makes things even slower. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > On 12/21/2010 11:36 AM, Mark Breen wrote: >> Hello John, >> >> I am really curious what feature of MS SQL Server you need that would force >> you to have to use the pay editions. I know that there are lots of >> features, but to date, I usually find that Express version works fine. >> There are plenty of utilities available to assist with administration >> functions including backs etc. >> >> thanks >> >> Mark