ADP to SQL Server over DSL connection?

[Mike MacSween]

Anybody done it? Speed OK? This would be over a 512 kbps connection, at BOTH
ends. i.e. the client machine would be on a DSL connection, so would the
server.

Cheers, Mike

[John Winterbottom]

"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .

Anybody done it? Speed OK? This would be over a 512 kbps connection, at BOTH ends. i.e. the client machine would be on a DSL connection, so would the
server.

We found it was useable at a pinch but you wouldn't want to run like that
all the time, the lag is too great, and connections tend to get dropped. We
even wrote the application to make it as bandwidth-efficient as possible,
(disconnected recordsets throughout, no bound forms maintaining open
connections), and found it was just too slow to use in day-to-day production
work. We ended up going with terminal server, (which totally rocks BTW).

[Ted Theodoropoulos]

i've never found a good way to accompish it either EXCEPT terminal
services. you definately shouldn't expose your sql server directly to
the internet unless you take some security precautions (e.g. don't run
sql on port 1433!). you would need to do a tracert and see what hops
your IP traffic will be forced to take if you go that route. your
connection is only as fast as the slowest segment so your client and
server may both have 512K connections but if there's one segment in
between that is at 256k, that's how fast you'll communicate.

a much safer alternative is connect via VPN and either connect that
way or run terminal services. as john pointed out, it's going to
probably be slow and you'll lose connections. vpn has to encrypt and
decrypt which adds some overhead and will be even slower. i'd def try
the terminal services route.

[John Winterbottom]

"Ted Theodoropoulos" <te********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5**************************@posting.google.c om...

i've never found a good way to accompish it either EXCEPT terminal
services. you definately shouldn't expose your sql server directly to
the internet unless you take some security precautions (e.g. don't run
sql on port 1433!). you would need to do a tracert and see what hops
your IP traffic will be forced to take if you go that route. your
connection is only as fast as the slowest segment so your client and
server may both have 512K connections but if there's one segment in
between that is at 256k, that's how fast you'll communicate.

a much safer alternative is connect via VPN and either connect that
way or run terminal services. as john pointed out, it's going to
probably be slow and you'll lose connections. vpn has to encrypt and
decrypt which adds some overhead and will be even slower. i'd def try
the terminal services route.

The only problems we've had with TS have been mapping to local printers -
apparently not all printers work well with TS. Some of them produce very
large print files which slows everything down because they have to be
transferred over the dsl connection. We have it working now but it took a
lot of trial and error.

There is a 3rd party solutioin called ThinPrint but it's pretty expensive.
If anyone knows a better alternative I'd appreciate it.

[David W. Fenton]

te********@yahoo.com (Ted Theodoropoulos) wrote in
news:f5**************************@posting.google.c om:

. . . your
connection is only as fast as the slowest segment so your client
and server may both have 512K connections but if there's one
segment in between that is at 256k, that's how fast you'll
communicate.

If it's aDSL, then if you have a 512K connection, that's your
*incoming* speed, and your outgoing speed is generally lower.
Typical speeds are something like 700K/300K (rounded to nearest
hundred), so you have to keep in mind that sending data back may be
significantly slower than retrieving it. *But*, if the server end is
aDSL, too, then your download is *its* upload, so basically,
two-communication is limited to the lower speed of both ends of the
connection.

If your remote client is on a 700/300 connection and your server is
on a 1500/500 connection, downloads from the server to the client
will max out at 500, and uploads from the client to the server will
max out at 300.

But if its not asynchronous, this wouldn't be the case, of course.
But aDSL is the most common kind in the US, at least.

My cable access is also asynchronous, something like 1500/400 (last
I tested). I have lots of clients with cable, also, and it works
great for things like VNC, and I also have great results with VPNs
to clients who run terminal server.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[DCM Fan]

We do this alot...with ADPs and MDBs. Performance doesn't seem to be a problem.

But, as most of you know, I build my Access/SQL Server apps to maximize the
server resources. The slowest parts of the application are the pure-JET parts,
like forms bound to wider-than-average tables. (Yes, I'm quick to group
like-fields together, and use "fetch-as-needed" subforms...)

All combo boxes are bound to pass-through queries using Stored Procedures. All
reports and read-only forms are bound in similar fashion.

Anyway, the technical implementation is done with Many-to-One NAT on the
firewall. When I make a request from home, the firewall says "Hey, this request
from 176.122.XXX.XXX is only allowed for this SQL Server's IP...and sure
enough, that's what he requested, so I'll give it him."

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

i've never found a good way to accompish it either EXCEPT terminal
services.

Naieve question: Does Citrix fall under the category of 'Terminal Services'?
--
PeteCresswell

[David W. Fenton]

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:9m********************************@4ax.com:

RE/

i've never found a good way to accompish it either EXCEPT terminal
services.

Naieve question: Does Citrix fall under the category of 'Terminal
Services'?

Citrix was the original creator of the technologies Microsoft
licensed for incorporation into Win2K. NT 4 had a Terminal Server
version, but licenses were very expensive and you really needed to
buy the Citrix extensions for it to be useful. In 1999 or so, I
looked at the minimum 5-client license and the total cost for
software alone was going to be $900/user. We didn't do it.

With the incorporation of the technology into Win2K, though, it's
become very cheap to use. Since more and more people have broadband
Internet access, it's become very, very usable.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Mike MacSween]

Thanks for the replies folks.

So a better solution might be ADP to SQL Server on the LAN, and TS to ADP
front ends (connected to SQL Server back end) over TS for WAN access?

In fact, if the server(s) were going to be set up for TS anyway, I wonder
whether there's any point doing it ALL over TS, even on the LAN

Mike

"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .

Anybody done it? Speed OK? This would be over a 512 kbps connection, at BOTH ends. i.e. the client machine would be on a DSL connection, so would the
server.

Cheers, Mike

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

With the incorporation of the technology into Win2K, though, it's
become very cheap to use. Since more and more people have broadband
Internet access, it's become very, very usable.

If I wanted to try to play around with this, I'm guessing the first thing I'd
need to do is build up a box with some kind of Windows Server on it, and the
next thing would be to install the terminal server part.

Any idea what I'd be looking for on my MSDN library disc?

Some possibilities I see are:

Windows Small Business Server 2003
Microsoft Application Center 2000
Office Live Communications Server 2003 Standard Edition
Mobile Information 2002 Server
Microsoft Commerce Server 2002

--
PeteCresswell

[tom]

John,

We do a fair amount of Citrix hosting of our AccessXP application,
and printing is certainly a headache of sorts. One solution that has
been very handy is to save the reports at snapshots to the user's
local machine. They can then print them from there. The snapshot files
are much smaller than printer spool files. We're currently working out
a way to automatically launch snapshot viewer on the user's local
machine & open the report we've just saved.

-Tom
"John Winterbottom" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c5*************@ID-185006.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"Ted Theodoropoulos" <te********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5**************************@posting.google.c om...

i've never found a good way to accompish it either EXCEPT terminal
services. you definately shouldn't expose your sql server directly to
the internet unless you take some security precautions (e.g. don't run
sql on port 1433!). you would need to do a tracert and see what hops
your IP traffic will be forced to take if you go that route. your
connection is only as fast as the slowest segment so your client and
server may both have 512K connections but if there's one segment in
between that is at 256k, that's how fast you'll communicate.

a much safer alternative is connect via VPN and either connect that
way or run terminal services. as john pointed out, it's going to
probably be slow and you'll lose connections. vpn has to encrypt and
decrypt which adds some overhead and will be even slower. i'd def try
the terminal services route.

The only problems we've had with TS have been mapping to local printers -
apparently not all printers work well with TS. Some of them produce very
large print files which slows everything down because they have to be
transferred over the dsl connection. We have it working now but it took a
lot of trial and error.

There is a 3rd party solutioin called ThinPrint but it's pretty expensive.
If anyone knows a better alternative I'd appreciate it.

[David W. Fenton]

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:q0********************************@4ax.com:

RE/

With the incorporation of the technology into Win2K, though, it's
become very cheap to use. Since more and more people have
broadband Internet access, it's become very, very usable.

If I wanted to try to play around with this, I'm guessing the
first thing I'd need to do is build up a box with some kind of
Windows Server on it, and the next thing would be to install the
terminal server part.

Any idea what I'd be looking for on my MSDN library disc?

Some possibilities I see are:

Windows Small Business Server 2003
Microsoft Application Center 2000
Office Live Communications Server 2003 Standard Edition
Mobile Information 2002 Server
Microsoft Commerce Server 2002

It's part of the default Win2K Server package, and, I'd assume,
likewise with Win2K3 Server.

By default, it allows two simultaneous terminal server logons (I
don't know if it allows two + a console logon). You then have to buy
licenses to allow more users to connect.

I don't administer any of the Terminal Servers I use, so I can't
give any practical advice at all. I can only say that the technology
works extremely well.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc