Server for MS Access DB

I already asked this question of Dell Support, but haven't really gotten a
response. Although much of the question is hardware related, I imagine those
here would be able to help me at least with the software portion of my
question. I couldn't find a NG for MS Server 2k3... The following
information is all being asked in reference to a MS Access Database that will
be run in-house only. Thanks for any help.

I work for a relatively small business, and we are setting up a server
specifically for the purpose of storing and protecting our main company
information database. This is to be accessible only within the office (so no
remote management needed), and I had a couple of questions, as I'm relatively
new to the world of server hardware and software.

We will have 1-25 (probably no more than 10 at most times) accessing the
database via a fronted placed on each user's system. What sort of processing
power will it take to run this? 1GB Ram? Less? More?

Second, we will be purchasing MS Server 2k3 to run this. Are there any
specific advantages/disadvantages to using MS SB Server vs. MS Server? I've
noticed that MS Server Standard is more expensive then MS SB Server, but that
the additional CALs for SB Server are much more expensive.

Finally, I would like to implement a RAID solution, as I understand that
means we generate a 'mirror' of the data for both system stability and backup
reasons. However, I don't know what sort of 'controller' I need. The system I
was looking at here at Dell didn't offer a controller that was compatible, so
I had to choose "No Primary Controller". Is that OK? What exactly does that
mean?

Thanks for your help.

Vel

Kevin
Wed Mar 02 14:18:30 CST 2005

Yes, you can place an Access DB on an SBS server. Most comments in this NG
though suggests that once you go much above 5 concurrent users, you really
want to be looking at an SQL backend instead of Access.

As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like about
SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS, Remote
Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the reasons the
CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all modules.

Also, if you go with SBS Premium, you get ISA and SQL, and the SQL is
actually licensed to allow you to backend a publicly accessed web site.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



"Vel." <Vel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:07FB1486-62FF-46DF-BCFB-8927BE717B7E@microsoft.com...
> I already asked this question of Dell Support, but haven't really gotten a
> response. Although much of the question is hardware related, I imagine
> those
> here would be able to help me at least with the software portion of my
> question. I couldn't find a NG for MS Server 2k3... The following
> information is all being asked in reference to a MS Access Database that
> will
> be run in-house only. Thanks for any help.
>
> I work for a relatively small business, and we are setting up a server
> specifically for the purpose of storing and protecting our main company
> information database. This is to be accessible only within the office (so
> no
> remote management needed), and I had a couple of questions, as I'm
> relatively
> new to the world of server hardware and software.
>
> We will have 1-25 (probably no more than 10 at most times) accessing the
> database via a fronted placed on each user's system. What sort of
> processing
> power will it take to run this? 1GB Ram? Less? More?
>
> Second, we will be purchasing MS Server 2k3 to run this. Are there any
> specific advantages/disadvantages to using MS SB Server vs. MS Server?
> I've
> noticed that MS Server Standard is more expensive then MS SB Server, but
> that
> the additional CALs for SB Server are much more expensive.
>
> Finally, I would like to implement a RAID solution, as I understand that
> means we generate a 'mirror' of the data for both system stability and
> backup
> reasons. However, I don't know what sort of 'controller' I need. The
> system I
> was looking at here at Dell didn't offer a controller that was compatible,
> so
> I had to choose "No Primary Controller". Is that OK? What exactly does
> that
> mean?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Vel

Kevin
Wed Mar 02 14:21:56 CST 2005

Oopps .. as far as Raid goes --- what model Dell server are you considering.
It's recommended that you go with a hardware Raid. But then there are
different types of Raid:

Raid 1 - you need two drives, and one drive is mirrored onto the other - so
you only have usuable space of 1 drive
Raid 5 - you need a minimum of 3 drives, and you get usuable space of 2
drives. Raid-5 is nice because you can lose one drive and keep running.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



"Vel." <Vel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:07FB1486-62FF-46DF-BCFB-8927BE717B7E@microsoft.com...
> I already asked this question of Dell Support, but haven't really gotten a
> response. Although much of the question is hardware related, I imagine
> those
> here would be able to help me at least with the software portion of my
> question. I couldn't find a NG for MS Server 2k3... The following
> information is all being asked in reference to a MS Access Database that
> will
> be run in-house only. Thanks for any help.
>
> I work for a relatively small business, and we are setting up a server
> specifically for the purpose of storing and protecting our main company
> information database. This is to be accessible only within the office (so
> no
> remote management needed), and I had a couple of questions, as I'm
> relatively
> new to the world of server hardware and software.
>
> We will have 1-25 (probably no more than 10 at most times) accessing the
> database via a fronted placed on each user's system. What sort of
> processing
> power will it take to run this? 1GB Ram? Less? More?
>
> Second, we will be purchasing MS Server 2k3 to run this. Are there any
> specific advantages/disadvantages to using MS SB Server vs. MS Server?
> I've
> noticed that MS Server Standard is more expensive then MS SB Server, but
> that
> the additional CALs for SB Server are much more expensive.
>
> Finally, I would like to implement a RAID solution, as I understand that
> means we generate a 'mirror' of the data for both system stability and
> backup
> reasons. However, I don't know what sort of 'controller' I need. The
> system I
> was looking at here at Dell didn't offer a controller that was compatible,
> so
> I had to choose "No Primary Controller". Is that OK? What exactly does
> that
> mean?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Vel

Vel
Wed Mar 02 15:33:04 CST 2005


Kevin,

Thanks for your help, but I had a question about the following:

> As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like about
> SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS, Remote
> Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the reasons the
> CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all modules.

What exactly would I need Exchange, DHCP, DNS, RA, and OWA for? Note that
we have no intentions of doing any web or email hosting; nor will we be
allowing remote access to our server for any purposes. Considering those two
things (we are a very small business, and the number of employees here is
only slightly higher than the number of office workstations). As I said, I'm
relatively unfamiliar with an actual client/server environment, but I need
the added security and control offered by MS Server.

>Raid 1 - you need two drives, and one drive is mirrored onto the other - so
>you only have usuable space of 1 drive
>Raid 5 - you need a minimum of 3 drives, and you get usuable space of 2
>drives. Raid-5 is nice because you can lose one drive and keep running.

Concerning a Raid1 or Raid5 setup, while ordering my hardware, I'm still not
exactly certain what a Primary Controller is, or whether or not it is
necessary. It certainly "sounds" necessary to me, but when configuring my
computer I didn't even have an option to by a Raid compatible Primary
Controller. My only option, when selecting a Raid setup was "None."

Thanks Again

SuperGumby
Wed Mar 02 17:17:53 CST 2005

Why would I buy SBS vs Windows Server. Price. SBS is less expensive than
plain windows server.

Before jumping headlong into such a choice I would want to know WHY!!! WHY
is Win+all-these-goodies cheaper than Win alone?
http://www.sbslinks.com/Us_v_them.htm

SO OK, we can live with the limitations, SBS it is.

Why would I use Exchange Server? All email is:
1) held centrally by the server
2) checked for viri before the user can access it
3) a central SPAM filtering system may be inplemented
4) centralised backup of email
5) public folders can be used to hold shared information. A 'company'
address book or access to resources (meeting rooms, shared laptops) are
examples.

You don't 'use' (as in actively use) DHCP and DNS, they are network
mechanisms which allow things to work. They are also not SBS specific so if
you want more info on them I suggest starting a new thread or even asking
elsewhere.

RRAS, OWA, any external access, does not have to be enabled. I bet you
eventually do though.

re: Primary Controller. Which Dell were you looking at? Sounds like your
choice of drives (did you choose IDE, SATA or SCSI?) precluded a RAID setup.

"Vel." <Vel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9A25441-9BC0-49BE-94F0-444E2881A2F5@microsoft.com...
>
> Kevin,
>
> Thanks for your help, but I had a question about the following:
>
>> As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like about
>> SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS, Remote
>> Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the reasons
>> the
>> CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all modules.
>
> What exactly would I need Exchange, DHCP, DNS, RA, and OWA for? Note that
> we have no intentions of doing any web or email hosting; nor will we be
> allowing remote access to our server for any purposes. Considering those
> two
> things (we are a very small business, and the number of employees here is
> only slightly higher than the number of office workstations). As I said,
> I'm
> relatively unfamiliar with an actual client/server environment, but I need
> the added security and control offered by MS Server.
>
>>Raid 1 - you need two drives, and one drive is mirrored onto the other -
>>so
>>you only have usuable space of 1 drive
>>Raid 5 - you need a minimum of 3 drives, and you get usuable space of 2
>>drives. Raid-5 is nice because you can lose one drive and keep running.
>
> Concerning a Raid1 or Raid5 setup, while ordering my hardware, I'm still
> not
> exactly certain what a Primary Controller is, or whether or not it is
> necessary. It certainly "sounds" necessary to me, but when configuring my
> computer I didn't even have an option to by a Raid compatible Primary
> Controller. My only option, when selecting a Raid setup was "None."
>
> Thanks Again

Kevin
Wed Mar 02 19:12:26 CST 2005

with Exchange, even in a small office, you can share calendars, schedule
group meetings, tasks, and have company wide contact lists.

I forgot to metnion that SBS also comes with Sharepoint Services, which is
an built in 'Intra'net -- an internal web site for the users. All users can
post announcements, calendar events, and you can use to post and make
available things like company policies, etc.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"


"Vel." <Vel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9A25441-9BC0-49BE-94F0-444E2881A2F5@microsoft.com...
>
> Kevin,
>
> Thanks for your help, but I had a question about the following:
>
>> As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like about
>> SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS, Remote
>> Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the reasons
>> the
>> CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all modules.
>
> What exactly would I need Exchange, DHCP, DNS, RA, and OWA for? Note that
> we have no intentions of doing any web or email hosting; nor will we be
> allowing remote access to our server for any purposes. Considering those
> two
> things (we are a very small business, and the number of employees here is
> only slightly higher than the number of office workstations). As I said,
> I'm
> relatively unfamiliar with an actual client/server environment, but I need
> the added security and control offered by MS Server.
>
>>Raid 1 - you need two drives, and one drive is mirrored onto the other -
>>so
>>you only have usuable space of 1 drive
>>Raid 5 - you need a minimum of 3 drives, and you get usuable space of 2
>>drives. Raid-5 is nice because you can lose one drive and keep running.
>
> Concerning a Raid1 or Raid5 setup, while ordering my hardware, I'm still
> not
> exactly certain what a Primary Controller is, or whether or not it is
> necessary. It certainly "sounds" necessary to me, but when configuring my
> computer I didn't even have an option to by a Raid compatible Primary
> Controller. My only option, when selecting a Raid setup was "None."
>
> Thanks Again

Henry
Wed Mar 02 22:49:33 CST 2005

Whoever is saying you need to move to SQL Server if you have more than 5
concurrent users on a client/server MS Access Application doesn't know
their arse from their elbow. It's utter crap, and would have to be a
pretty badly written application to not easily support 20+ concurrent
users.

( Were talking 80 - 100 users with say 80% concurrent on a 1Gb+ Jet
Database running smooth as silk - I've seen a LOB MS Access Order entry
application 45 concurrent users pounding at an 850Mb Jet Database 8
hours a day written by an armature that ran better then the LOB App they
paid over a Half Mill for. )

It's a bloody nonsense.

One thing you DON'T want to do is move it to MSDE as that has Thread
Throttling applied at 5 concurrent threads.

Moving to SQL Server backend will also require a re-write of the
application in most cases to make use of SPs and Triggers if you're
going to get any performance gain. Jet is a very fine DB used in 100s of
1000s of applications including many MS Top end Apps. - The God's alone
know why MS is so determined to badmouth it and try and kill it off.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
CI Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne SBS Users Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/


"Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
news:ulrv$T2HFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yes, you can place an Access DB on an SBS server. Most comments in
> this NG though suggests that once you go much above 5 concurrent
> users, you really want to be looking at an SQL backend instead of
> Access.
>
> As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like
> about SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS,
> Remote Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the
> reasons the CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all
> modules.
>
> Also, if you go with SBS Premium, you get ISA and SQL, and the SQL is
> actually licensed to allow you to backend a publicly accessed web
> site.
>
> --
> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Buddy
Wed Mar 02 23:12:18 CST 2005

I agree that Jet works very nice on the LAN with 20+ users. Just don't try
to use it across a VPN or WAN link! That's asking for trouble.

Buddy G

"Henry Craven [SBS-MVP]" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:%237dzrx6HFHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Whoever is saying you need to move to SQL Server if you have more than 5
> concurrent users on a client/server MS Access Application doesn't know
> their arse from their elbow. It's utter crap, and would have to be a
> pretty badly written application to not easily support 20+ concurrent
> users.
>
> ( Were talking 80 - 100 users with say 80% concurrent on a 1Gb+ Jet
> Database running smooth as silk - I've seen a LOB MS Access Order entry
> application 45 concurrent users pounding at an 850Mb Jet Database 8
> hours a day written by an armature that ran better then the LOB App they
> paid over a Half Mill for. )
>
> It's a bloody nonsense.
>
> One thing you DON'T want to do is move it to MSDE as that has Thread
> Throttling applied at 5 concurrent threads.
>
> Moving to SQL Server backend will also require a re-write of the
> application in most cases to make use of SPs and Triggers if you're
> going to get any performance gain. Jet is a very fine DB used in 100s of
> 1000s of applications including many MS Top end Apps. - The God's alone
> know why MS is so determined to badmouth it and try and kill it off.
>
> --
> Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
> CI Information Technology
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Melbourne SBS Users Group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/
>
>
> "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:ulrv$T2HFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Yes, you can place an Access DB on an SBS server. Most comments in
> > this NG though suggests that once you go much above 5 concurrent
> > users, you really want to be looking at an SQL backend instead of
> > Access.
> >
> > As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like
> > about SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS,
> > Remote Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the
> > reasons the CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all
> > modules.
> >
> > Also, if you go with SBS Premium, you get ISA and SQL, and the SQL is
> > actually licensed to allow you to backend a publicly accessed web
> > site.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
> > "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"
>
>

Kevin
Wed Mar 02 23:50:56 CST 2005

Thanks, Henry, for setting things (and me) straight!. Perhaps it was the
MSDE restriction that I was thinking about.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"


"Henry Craven [SBS-MVP]" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:%237dzrx6HFHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Whoever is saying you need to move to SQL Server if you have more than 5
> concurrent users on a client/server MS Access Application doesn't know
> their arse from their elbow. It's utter crap, and would have to be a
> pretty badly written application to not easily support 20+ concurrent
> users.
>
> ( Were talking 80 - 100 users with say 80% concurrent on a 1Gb+ Jet
> Database running smooth as silk - I've seen a LOB MS Access Order entry
> application 45 concurrent users pounding at an 850Mb Jet Database 8 hours
> a day written by an armature that ran better then the LOB App they paid
> over a Half Mill for. )
>
> It's a bloody nonsense.
>
> One thing you DON'T want to do is move it to MSDE as that has Thread
> Throttling applied at 5 concurrent threads.
>
> Moving to SQL Server backend will also require a re-write of the
> application in most cases to make use of SPs and Triggers if you're going
> to get any performance gain. Jet is a very fine DB used in 100s of 1000s
> of applications including many MS Top end Apps. - The God's alone know why
> MS is so determined to badmouth it and try and kill it off.
>
> --
> Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
> CI Information Technology
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Melbourne SBS Users Group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/
>
>
> "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:ulrv$T2HFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, you can place an Access DB on an SBS server. Most comments in this
>> NG though suggests that once you go much above 5 concurrent users, you
>> really want to be looking at an SQL backend instead of Access.
>>
>> As fas as cost of std Windows Server vs SBS -- that's what we like about
>> SBS -- it comes with W2K3 server, Exchange 2003, DHCP, DNS, Remote
>> Administration, and OWA (Outlook over the Internet). One of the reasons
>> the CALs are more is because each CAL allows you access to all modules.
>>
>> Also, if you go with SBS Premium, you get ISA and SQL, and the SQL is
>> actually licensed to allow you to backend a publicly accessed web site.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
>> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"
>
>

Henry
Thu Mar 03 00:38:11 CST 2005

Wholeheartedly Agree.
Best to web enable that sucker or use a TS/RD Session.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
CI Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne SBS Users Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/


"Buddy Greenshield" <gcsbend-at-bendcable-dot-com> wrote in message
news:%23csBU%236HFHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I agree that Jet works very nice on the LAN with 20+ users. Just don't
>try
> to use it across a VPN or WAN link! That's asking for trouble.
>
> Buddy G

Henry
Thu Mar 03 00:38:44 CST 2005

I'd say that would be a good bet.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
CI Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne SBS Users Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/

"Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
news:uJrsvT7HFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Henry, for setting things (and me) straight!. Perhaps it was
> the MSDE restriction that I was thinking about.
>
> --
> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Vel
Thu Mar 03 07:01:03 CST 2005

>Why would I buy SBS vs Windows Server. Price. SBS is less expensive than
>plain windows server.

It doesn't take too many add on CALs before the price becomes higher than
standard Windows Server, hence I was curious if that would be sufficient.

> re: Primary Controller. Which Dell were you looking at? Sounds like your
> choice of drives (did you choose IDE, SATA or SCSI?) precluded a RAID setup
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=sc420&s=bsd#bottom_anchor

With the following changes:

Intel® Pentium® 4 processor, 3.4GHz,1MB Cache,800MHz FSB, EM64T
Save $275 on 1G DDR2, 533MHz, 2X512 Single Ranked DIMMs
SATA RAID 1, 2 SATA Drives connected to Onboard SATA Controller
PV100T, IDE, TR40, 20/40GB, Internal TBU
TapeWare, Tape Backup Software SBS/Enhanced Suite
1.44M, Internal, X30, Floppy Drive for PESC

When I selected the only option for primary controller I was informed that
it was incompatible, so instead I selected "None"

SuperGumby
Thu Mar 03 15:12:02 CST 2005

complete the order leaving the 'primary controller' on none.

Then ring Dell and tell them you don't want the rubbish Travan drive but
want a minimum DDS4.

I see no reason to purchase TapeWare.

"Vel." <Vel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC46419D-E4C9-42D7-9989-D7D672A6B3B4@microsoft.com...
> >Why would I buy SBS vs Windows Server. Price. SBS is less expensive than
>>plain windows server.
>
> It doesn't take too many add on CALs before the price becomes higher than
> standard Windows Server, hence I was curious if that would be sufficient.
>
>> re: Primary Controller. Which Dell were you looking at? Sounds like your
>> choice of drives (did you choose IDE, SATA or SCSI?) precluded a RAID
>> setup.
> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=sc420&s=bsd#bottom_anchor
>
> With the following changes:
>
> Intel® Pentium® 4 processor, 3.4GHz,1MB Cache,800MHz FSB, EM64T
> Save $275 on 1G DDR2, 533MHz, 2X512 Single Ranked DIMMs
> SATA RAID 1, 2 SATA Drives connected to Onboard SATA Controller
> PV100T, IDE, TR40, 20/40GB, Internal TBU
> TapeWare, Tape Backup Software SBS/Enhanced Suite
> 1.44M, Internal, X30, Floppy Drive for PESC
>
> When I selected the only option for primary controller I was informed that
> it was incompatible, so instead I selected "None"