By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,063 Members | 1,278 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,063 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

No solution on Wan.

P: n/a
I am confused to my situation of having an access database 25 mb on a wan
due to the situation of telephone line cost per minute. I have tried indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes even when
there is no changes in the two database!
Is there any other way to use access on a wan? I have tried Albert article on
wan but all the choice give no solution. I like access but I got no clue as
how to extend the usage on wan. Or maybe can somebody recomend supplier of
wide area lan such as point to point or anything like that. Thanks

Jack

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200603/1
Mar 5 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
14 Replies


P: n/a
(1) You can modify your Access database to be an Access client to a server
database. Access can serve as a client to any ODBC-compliant server -- I
have used it with Microsoft and Sybase SQL Servers, Sybase SQL Anywhere, and
Informix. (In fact, not long ago, I experimented using the third-party ODBC
drivers, QODBC, to connect an Access client to QuickBooks' tables. I didn't
test extensively, but could open the QuickBooks tables in table view.)

Along with Access, but not installed automatically, is MSDE, a
purposely-limited version of Microsoft SQL Server. There are free or
inexpensive server databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL. If you have the
necessary version of the .NET framework, you can use Microsoft's SQL Server
2005 Express Edition, which is free.

or

(2) But, an easier approach is to use Microsoft Terminal Server and/or
Citrix Metaframe with a Virtual Private Network to execute on the server
itself. A workable, but not-as-well-regarded solution would be one of the
remote Access software packages.

(3) More work, and more expensive, you could create a Web-based application
in classic .asp pages, or ASP.NET, or any one of a number of other web
environments.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in message
news:5ccdaf8365756@uwe...
I am confused to my situation of having an access database 25 mb on a wan
due to the situation of telephone line cost per minute. I have tried
indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes even when
there is no changes in the two database!
Is there any other way to use access on a wan? I have tried Albert article
on
wan but all the choice give no solution. I like access but I got no clue
as
how to extend the usage on wan. Or maybe can somebody recomend supplier of
wide area lan such as point to point or anything like that. Thanks

Jack

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200603/1

Mar 5 '06 #2

P: n/a
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in message
news:5ccdaf8365756@uwe...
I am confused to my situation of having an access database 25 mb on a wan
due to the situation of telephone line cost per minute. I have tried
indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes even when
there is no changes in the two database!
Is there any other way to use access on a wan? I have tried Albert article
on
wan but all the choice give no solution. I like access but I got no clue
as
how to extend the usage on wan. Or maybe can somebody recomend supplier of
wide area lan such as point to point or anything like that. Thanks


I gave about 3, or 4 possible solutions in that article. Did you not read
it??

.. The best solution is to use terminal services (I mentioned that in the
article)

Another possible solution is to use a database server for the back end (the
free edition of sql server comes to mind ). I also mentioned the use of sql
server in that article..and since that article, we now have some very nice
free versions of sql server available.

Also, any solution is assuming you split your database. You done
that..right?? you can read about that here

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...plit/index.htm

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
Mar 5 '06 #3

P: n/a
another solution that I considered the other day would depend on how large
your database is.

Assuming a split database. After you do a compact and repair..and then turn
the file into a zip file...how large is it?

You could thus consider zipping up your replica (do a compact first)...then
send that to your server

The server would un-zip...then sync...then zip...then send back...

I believe the above would give rather decent performance IF YOUR data file
zipped up is not large.

So, assuming you split....after you compact and repair your data only file.
How large is it when you zip it up?
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
Mar 5 '06 #4

P: n/a
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in
news:5ccdaf8365756@uwe:
I have tried indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes
even when there is no changes in the two database!


That can't possibly be indirect replication -- it's probably direct
replication.

Indirect replication requires having the synchronizer running on
both ends of the synch, with the replicas you are synching under the
management of of the synchronizers. This is not simple to set up.

I have never run into any situation where indirect replication took
more than 10 minutes to complete, even over 28.8 dialup.

The most common mistake in setting up indirect replication is to
have the remote replica in a shared folder, so that the computer
from which you initiate the synch can actually see the MDB file on
the other computer (via the share). In that case, you will end up
with a DIRECT synch, which should be very slow (and you'd be lucky
for it to take a mere 20 minutes).

For indirect replication to work, the replicas being synched can
*not* be shared on the LAN. This is why you always synch with a
replication hub, and not with any replica that is shared on a LAN.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 6 '06 #5

P: n/a
"Albert D. Kallal" <ka****@msn.com> wrote in
news:lAKOf.108373$B94.42753@pd7tw3no:
another solution that I considered the other day would depend on
how large your database is.

Assuming a split database. After you do a compact and repair..and
then turn the file into a zip file...how large is it?

You could thus consider zipping up your replica (do a compact
first)...then send that to your server
NO ALBERT -- THIS IS HORRIBLE ADVICE AND BREAKS REPLICATION BADLY.

I've already posted on this twice, pointing out how completely wrong
your advice is here, but you've apparently not read my messages.
The server would un-zip...then sync...then zip...then send back...

I believe the above would give rather decent performance IF YOUR
data file zipped up is not large.
The performance would be much poorer than plain old indirect
replication, which sends only the changes, not the whole database.
So, assuming you split....after you compact and repair your data
only file. How large is it when you zip it up?


You can't do what you're recommending:

http://trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet009.asp?1033

ALBERT, PLEASE STOP GIVING ADVICE ABOUT SOMETHING WITH WHICH YOU
HAVE NO ACTUAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 6 '06 #6

P: n/a
>
The performance would be much poorer than plain old indirect
replication, which sends only the changes, not the whole database.
Yes, but the overhead of connecting takes a lot of time. Try zipping up a 10
meg file....the result is a file that is at least 5 times smaller...

in most cases, you can transfer a zipped file in LESS TIME then it takes to
replicate. Further, with a crappie connection, your file either
downloads...or does not......

You can't do what you're recommending:

http://trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet009.asp?1033

ALBERT, PLEASE STOP GIVING ADVICE ABOUT SOMETHING WITH WHICH YOU
HAVE NO ACTUAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.
sure you can do the above. You just have to make sure the server machine can
duplicate the computer name..and path name.....

you likely never heard of vmware? Perhaps you are new to computers?

You can most certainly setup an environment where you duplicate the machine
name, and path names.....

And, in fact, Vmware has a great contest on right now...you will do well to
read up on what vmware calls an appliance....

http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/challenge/

Why is duplication of the path name, and computer name a problem with
today's virtual technology? (we read about virtual computing every day and
how hot it is a hot new frontier. I guess you never considered this
technology. I use virtual pc to duplicate my clients path names and
environments all the time.
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Mar 6 '06 #7

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
I have tried indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes
even when there is no changes in the two database!


That can't possibly be indirect replication -- it's probably direct
replication.

Indirect replication requires having the synchronizer running on

Thank you guys for the kind assistance, I really appreciate it. Indirect
replication works!! However, the amount of time taken to syncronize is still
quite long (8 minutes on modem 50kbps). How can i make the indirect
syncronize faster as i am using ms access to be point of sale at the end user.
Is there a faster syncronizer?

In addition, I am using incoming connection in win xp so as to receive the
connection from client. But the modem instantly receive the connection upon
dial up from the client. How can I make the incoming conection 'pick up' the
call say 10 rings as i parralel with normal phone. Thanks Again.
Jack

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
Mar 6 '06 #8

P: n/a
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in
news:5cdb08d5c23d2@uwe:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I have tried indirect
replication with modem 50 kbps but it is slow about 20 minutes
even when there is no changes in the two database!
That can't possibly be indirect replication -- it's probably
direct replication.

Indirect replication requires having the synchronizer running on

Thank you guys for the kind assistance, I really appreciate it.
Indirect replication works!! However, the amount of time taken to
syncronize is still quite long (8 minutes on modem 50kbps). How
can i make the indirect syncronize faster as i am using ms access
to be point of sale at the end user. Is there a faster
syncronizer?


I don't consider 8 minutes to be a long time at all.

If you want real-time data, then replication is *not* the way to go
at all. Replication is useful when you can function well when
synchronizing a few times a day. If you need less latency than that,
then replication is not going to work well.
In addition, I am using incoming connection in win xp so as to
receive the connection from client. But the modem instantly
receive the connection upon dial up from the client. How can I
make the incoming conection 'pick up' the call say 10 rings as i
parralel with normal phone. Thanks Again.


I don't understand the question. RAS should be set up to answer on a
certain number of rings. I don't know why it wouldn't pick up after
that number of rings.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 6 '06 #9

P: n/a
"Albert D. Kallal" <ka****@msn.com> wrote in
news:lpLOf.108551$B94.107726@pd7tw3no:
The performance would be much poorer than plain old indirect
replication, which sends only the changes, not the whole
database.
Yes, but the overhead of connecting takes a lot of time. Try
zipping up a 10 meg file....the result is a file that is at least
5 times smaller...


But you CAN'T DO THAT. It breaks replication.
in most cases, you can transfer a zipped file in LESS TIME then it
takes to replicate. Further, with a crappie connection, your file
either downloads...or does not......
Indirect replication works the same way. It sends a number of very
small files back and forth. If the synch fails because of a lost
connection, the changes are resent the next time you synch.

Now, if you're talking about DIRECT replication, it's a very
different situation, but the original poster said INDIRECT
replication from the verybeginning.
You can't do what you're recommending:

http://trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet009.asp?1033

ALBERT, PLEASE STOP GIVING ADVICE ABOUT SOMETHING WITH WHICH YOU
HAVE NO ACTUAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.


sure you can do the above. You just have to make sure the server
machine can duplicate the computer name..and path name.....


You can't connect two computers that have the same name via dialup
networking, Albert.

Emailing a zip file is breaking replication, even if you have a
situation where you can use the machine name/path trick to make Jet
think the file is in the same location. It only works with transfers
via floppy disk, since you can't use a network connection between
two computers with the same name.
you likely never heard of vmware? Perhaps you are new to
computers?

You can most certainly setup an environment where you duplicate
the machine name, and path names.....
Well, first off, you can't use RAS to connect the two computers with
an SMB connection, as the original poster described.

Secondly, you made this recommendation of zipping up and
moving/copying replicas without including the absolutely crucial
caveat about faking the machine names/paths. You didn't mention
VMWare or anything else.
And, in fact, Vmware has a great contest on right now...you will
do well to read up on what vmware calls an appliance....

http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/challenge/

Why is duplication of the path name, and computer name a problem
with today's virtual technology? (we read about virtual computing
every day and how hot it is a hot new frontier. I guess you never
considered this technology. I use virtual pc to duplicate my
clients path names and environments all the time.


Well, it's a bad idea, since it breaks SMB networking.

ANd it's mis-using replication.

But you're now cleverly trying to cover up for giving BAD ADVICE.

You didn't mention VMWare or the duplication of machine name/path
when you twice posted the advice to email zipped replicas. This
indicates to me that YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS ILLEGAL, and you only
now have figured out that there is a clever method for implementing
it.

It's a very complicated method, though, and it's *still* not going
to be faster than indirect replication. Secondly, it can't be
scheduled (indirect replication can be).

You gave bad advice, Albert. Admit it and move on.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 6 '06 #10

P: n/a
>>
sure you can do the above. You just have to make sure the server
machine can duplicate the computer name..and path name.....
You can't connect two computers that have the same name via dialup
networking, Albert.


and, where did I suggest that? And why are you putting words in my mouth?

I run file shares from virtual pc all the time. I was suggesting that you
use a server. I never suggested that you actually transfer between two
machines with the same machine name. That would be stupid. On the other
hand, I tend to assume that people are using things like virtual pc on a
daily bases - and I would assume you are too...

obviously, the zipping would likely occur and be initiated from a web site,
or a windows script. However, the user just might not have these things at
their disposal.

Well, first off, you can't use RAS to connect the two computers with
an SMB connection, as the original poster described.
again, not suggesting the above at all. There is so many web examples that
prompt for a file to upload via FTP. A simple web site that prompts for the
file, or a windows script that zips up the mdb file, and ftp's it to your
web server space is how this would work. The web server would then unzip the
file to share on virtual pc. I use my web space to update clients on a
daily bases.

Really, even email could be used here if needed. However, I don't believe in
making the client go through a lot of manual steps, and I have seen
replication setups where very many dangerous processes had to occur (copying
files is one of them!!).

But, at the end of the day, one could even use email....
You didn't mention VMWare or the duplication of machine name/path
when you twice posted the advice to email zipped replicas. This
indicates to me that YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS ILLEGAL, and you only
now have figured out that there is a clever method for implementing
it.


I just assumed it was quite obvious.....

I use virtual pc on a daily bases to emulate my clients path names and
server names (this allows me to send them updates that are pre-configured to
their setup). Virtual pc also allows me to setup imagery networks of 4 or 5
pc's.....4 clients..and one server. This is the new world of virtual
computers.

It also makes testing this stuff really easy too....

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
Mar 7 '06 #11

P: n/a
>
I don't understand the question. RAS should be set up to answer on a
certain number of rings. I don't know why it wouldn't pick up after
that number of rings.


Sorry for answering late, I got busy and sick lately. I mean that i have a
parallel telephone where the line is connected to computer and from computer
to normal handset. But when incoming call rings from normal callers, the
computer immediately 'pick up the phone and the other side hears the modem
noise. Is there anyway to delay the pick up to say 10 rings?

Another subject is that when i use the design convert in replication manager,
the master design convert cannot convert all to replicated tables only to
locals' the computer say'. What does that mean and ways to fix the problem
so as able to convert to replicated table. Maybe that's why takes so long to
syncronize as local?
thanks

jack

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200603/1
Mar 10 '06 #12

P: n/a
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in
news:5d074b5ce29af@uwe:

I don't understand the question. RAS should be set up to answer on
a certain number of rings. I don't know why it wouldn't pick up
after that number of rings.

Sorry for answering late, I got busy and sick lately. I mean that
i have a parallel telephone where the line is connected to
computer and from computer to normal handset. But when incoming
call rings from normal callers, the computer immediately 'pick up
the phone and the other side hears the modem noise. Is there
anyway to delay the pick up to say 10 rings?


I seem to recall that in Windows NT 4, there was a place in the RAS
UI to set the number of rings, but maybe I'm remembering Win9x. In
any event, I just Googled on it, and found this article, which
should give you what you need:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=145879

You have create and set a new registry key, but the instructions are
clear for how to do that.
Another subject is that when i use the design convert in
replication manager, the master design convert cannot convert all
to replicated tables only to locals' the computer say'. What does
that mean and ways to fix the problem so as able to convert to
replicated table. Maybe that's why takes so long to syncronize as
local?


What's the error number?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 10 '06 #13

P: n/a
>> replication manager, the master design convert cannot convert all
to replicated tables only to locals' the computer say'. What does
that mean and ways to fix the problem so as able to convert to
replicated table. Maybe that's why takes so long to syncronize as
local?


What's the error number?

About the inability to convert to master design, I have found the answer,
thanks. It is about the admin permission in the security.

I have tried another way to update two database. Since replication syncronize
tables in two database only(right? and does not include form and maybe query)
so as to be identical, I have tried to export the tables that i need, the
whole tables (important ones) into txt files and zip them into small files
and then transfer to the computer that i need whenever the client need them.
So that the size is much small and does not take long time to transfer. Is
it a good idea? Any suggestion? Thanks.
Jack

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200603/1
Mar 11 '06 #14

P: n/a
"JACK GUNAWAN via AccessMonster.com" <u18520@uwe> wrote in
news:5d11e0d0ec462@uwe:
I have tried another way to update two database. Since replication
syncronize tables in two database only(right? . . .
Well, any single synchronization operation is between two replicas,
but there can be as many replicas as you like (though maybe there's
a limit of 255 or something? I dunno). This is why one usually has a
star topology, with a ring of replicas synching with a central hub
replica, so that the hub has the most up-to-date data from all the
replicas, and then passes it onto all the replicas each time they
synch with it.
. . . and does not include form and maybe query)
Well, you *can* replicate forms and reports, but it's not viable in
the long term, as it will quickly corrupt Queries are fine, because
they Jet objects, just like tables. The general idea is that you
replicate only the tables. Since any properly designed Access
application is split into front end (forms/reports/etc.) and back
end (data tables only), this works quite naturally.
. . . . so as to be identical, I have tried to export the tables
that i need, the whole tables (important ones) into txt files and
zip them into small files and then transfer to the computer that i
need whenever the client need them. So that the size is much small
and does not take long time to transfer. Is it a good idea? Any
suggestion?


Well, if all you're going to do is replace the existing data with
the data from the other table, sure, that works fine. But if you
need to merge changes made in both, then you'd have to do quite a
large amount of programming to reconcile the changes, additions and
deletes. It's doable, but I"d never want to have to do it myself.

Indirect replication is by far the most efficient method for
synchronizing two data files. If the 8 minutes you say it takes is
too much for you, then I don't think you have any solution that's
going to work.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 11 '06 #15

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.