By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,573 Members | 903 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,573 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Running a MS-Access BE and an SQL-Server BE on same TS Server

P: n/a
What are the implications of running a MS-Access BE and an SQL-Server
BE on the same Terminal Server?

Assuming that the TS can handle the load are there any other issues?
Thanks
Patrick
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Patrick Fisher wrote:
What are the implications of running a MS-Access BE and an SQL-Server
BE on the same Terminal Server?

Assuming that the TS can handle the load are there any other issues?
Thanks
Patrick


You either serve the Access "front end" as a terminal server published
application or you just stick an Access "back end" on it in which case the
server is nothing more than a file server. Which are you talking about?
Certainly in the case of the latter the added load would be minimal. If you
plan on installing Access on the server and running Access apps from the server
then the added load would be significant as your number of users climb.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
Hello Rick

We are talking about a customer who currently runs 4 TSs with load
balancing running SQL Server to about 80 users, the data is held on a
5th TS, this system is running a program called scala and works at an
acceptable speed accross an ADSL VPN

Against my advice they have installed our Access97 Runtime using DFS
and BE on one of the TSs, this across the VPN is very slow when Scala
users a logged on.

They have restricted the Access Runtime to one server but of course it
is still running the SQL program as well.

I wondered whether there might be a clash between two databases
running on the same server or whether it was simply a question of
load.

My feeling is that they should have a dedicated server for our Access
Program

Patrick

On Tue, 03 May 2005 11:24:36 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
<ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Patrick Fisher wrote:
What are the implications of running a MS-Access BE and an SQL-Server
BE on the same Terminal Server?

Assuming that the TS can handle the load are there any other issues?
Thanks
Patrick


You either serve the Access "front end" as a terminal server published
application or you just stick an Access "back end" on it in which case the
server is nothing more than a file server. Which are you talking about?
Certainly in the case of the latter the added load would be minimal. If you
plan on installing Access on the server and running Access apps from the server
then the added load would be significant as your number of users climb.


Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
Patrick Fisher wrote:
Hello Rick

We are talking about a customer who currently runs 4 TSs with load
balancing running SQL Server to about 80 users, the data is held on a
5th TS, this system is running a program called scala and works at an
acceptable speed accross an ADSL VPN

Against my advice they have installed our Access97 Runtime using DFS
and BE on one of the TSs, this across the VPN is very slow when Scala
users a logged on.

They have restricted the Access Runtime to one server but of course it
is still running the SQL program as well.

I wondered whether there might be a clash between two databases
running on the same server or whether it was simply a question of
load.

My feeling is that they should have a dedicated server for our Access
Program

Patrick


Ok, then they are running Microsoft Access on one of the servers, not simply
hosting the back end on it. I agree that this is not a good idea. It's not
even a good idea to run terminal services and SQL Server on the same box. Any
SQL Server that is doing any real work should be on a dedicated box.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Nov 13 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.