By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,519 Members | 2,412 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,519 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Created on Access 2003, but.......................

P: n/a
I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users. My
code was also done using 2003.

If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these dbs
with all code, etc?

Please explain

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
May 11 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
49 Replies


P: n/a
Hi, Mell.
If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these dbs
with all code, etc?
If you developed the database application in Access 2000 database format
(the default for Access 2003), didn't use any Access 2002 or 2003 -specific
objects or methods in the code, and didn't convert it into an MDE database
file, then users with Access 2000 or newer will be able to use and read the
database file.

If the file is in Access 2002-2003 database format, then the Access 2000 and
earlier versions won't be able to open the database. If you converted it
into an MDE database file, then only users with Access 2003 will be able to
open the file.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Mell via AccessMonster.com" <u18304@uwe> wrote in message
news:60194ed649b70@uwe...I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users. My
code was also done using 2003.

If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these dbs
with all code, etc?

Please explain

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

May 11 '06 #2

P: n/a
Great!

That sums it up!

Thank you so kindly....

'69 Camaro wrote:
Hi, Mell.
If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these dbs
with all code, etc?


If you developed the database application in Access 2000 database format
(the default for Access 2003), didn't use any Access 2002 or 2003 -specific
objects or methods in the code, and didn't convert it into an MDE database
file, then users with Access 2000 or newer will be able to use and read the
database file.

If the file is in Access 2002-2003 database format, then the Access 2000 and
earlier versions won't be able to open the database. If you converted it
into an MDE database file, then only users with Access 2003 will be able to
open the file.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users. My
code was also done using 2003.

[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

Please explain


--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200605/1
May 11 '06 #3

P: n/a
You're welcome. Glad to help.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Mell via AccessMonster.com" <u18304@uwe> wrote in message
news:601a181c007c7@uwe...
Great!

That sums it up!

Thank you so kindly....

'69 Camaro wrote:
Hi, Mell.
If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these
dbs
with all code, etc?


If you developed the database application in Access 2000 database format
(the default for Access 2003), didn't use any Access 2002 or
2003 -specific
objects or methods in the code, and didn't convert it into an MDE database
file, then users with Access 2000 or newer will be able to use and read
the
database file.

If the file is in Access 2002-2003 database format, then the Access 2000
and
earlier versions won't be able to open the database. If you converted it
into an MDE database file, then only users with Access 2003 will be able
to
open the file.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users. My
code was also done using 2003.

[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

Please explain


--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200605/1

May 11 '06 #4

P: n/a
Although you could have two different versions of the same database
and sync them at regular intervals so that everyone can see and
contribute to what everyone else can see and contribute to. It is not
elegant and it is costly on disk space and probably doubles the amount
of traffic down your network lines but it works cos I did it for a
while until I found a permanent fix.

However, from my recent experience I would recommend exporting your
Access file to SQL Express or some other database engine and then just
using Access as a front end to that. My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't even
have to pay for our industrial database...how is that for
cheapskating?

On Thu, 11 May 2006 11:32:21 -0700, "'69 Camaro"
<Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM> wrote:
You're welcome. Glad to help.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Mell via AccessMonster.com" <u18304@uwe> wrote in message
news:601a181c007c7@uwe...
Great!

That sums it up!

Thank you so kindly....

'69 Camaro wrote:
Hi, Mell.

If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these
dbs
with all code, etc?

If you developed the database application in Access 2000 database format
(the default for Access 2003), didn't use any Access 2002 or
2003 -specific
objects or methods in the code, and didn't convert it into an MDE database
file, then users with Access 2000 or newer will be able to use and read
the
database file.

If the file is in Access 2002-2003 database format, then the Access 2000
and
earlier versions won't be able to open the database. If you converted it
into an MDE database file, then only users with Access 2003 will be able
to
open the file.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.

I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users. My
code was also done using 2003.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

Please explain


--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200605/1

May 11 '06 #5

P: n/a
Snuff <sn*****@all2worry4.com> wrote in
news:aq********************************@4ax.com:
Although you could have two different versions of the same
database and sync them at regular intervals so that everyone can
see and contribute to what everyone else can see and contribute
to. It is not elegant and it is costly on disk space and probably
doubles the amount of traffic down your network lines but it works
cos I did it for a while until I found a permanent fix.
The above looks to me to be complete and utter gibberish. It makes
absolutely no sense in any of its parts.
However, from my recent experience I would recommend exporting
your Access file to SQL Express or some other database engine and
then just using Access as a front end to that. My firm actually
managed to convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so
we don't even have to pay for our industrial database...how is
that for cheapskating?


This, too, looks like malarkey.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 11 '06 #6

P: n/a
Hi, Snuff.
Although you could have two different versions of the same database <snip> It is not
elegant and it is costly on disk space and probably doubles the amount
of traffic down your network lines but it works cos I did it for a
while until I found a permanent fix.
Please explain why you went to the trouble to build two versions of the same
database for Access 2000, 2002, and 2003 users when one Access 2000 database
format front end or back end would have accommodated any of them.
However, from my recent experience I would recommend exporting your
Access file to SQL Express or some other database engine and then just
using Access as a front end to that.
This is always an option, but upsizing to another database engine requires
time and effort to accommodate connections, linked tables, queries, stored
procedures, VBA code, and possibly security. The effort requires
availability of the correct skill set, and time requires labor costs, so
unless there's a really good reason to upgrade the database engine to
another one, such as security, or significantly increased concurrent
transactions that are slowing processing due to record locks, or the need
for logged transactions, or movement of the backend to a WAN, et cetera,
then one shouldn't be migrating from Jet.
My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't even
have to pay for our industrial database
Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. Your firm migrated the data,
because MySQL can't accommodate the other Access database objects, such as
forms, reports, modules, et cetera. The queries probably remain in the
Access front end as well, although they may have needed changing to
accommodate pass-through queries. Which may, in turn, have required VBA
code changes in the forms that previously relied upon being able to update
the bound data set automatically with the built-in features. If these
changes needed to be done, then the money spent on the labor for the
migration cost your firm "something."

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Snuff" <sn*****@all2worry4.com> wrote in message
news:aq********************************@4ax.com... Although you could have two different versions of the same database
and sync them at regular intervals so that everyone can see and
contribute to what everyone else can see and contribute to. It is not
elegant and it is costly on disk space and probably doubles the amount
of traffic down your network lines but it works cos I did it for a
while until I found a permanent fix.

However, from my recent experience I would recommend exporting your
Access file to SQL Express or some other database engine and then just
using Access as a front end to that. My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't even
have to pay for our industrial database...how is that for
cheapskating?

On Thu, 11 May 2006 11:32:21 -0700, "'69 Camaro"
<Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM> wrote:
You're welcome. Glad to help.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Mell via AccessMonster.com" <u18304@uwe> wrote in message
news:601a181c007c7@uwe...
Great!

That sums it up!

Thank you so kindly....

'69 Camaro wrote:
Hi, Mell.

> If they have Ms Access 2000 or higher, will they be able to use these
> dbs
> with all code, etc?

If you developed the database application in Access 2000 database format
(the default for Access 2003), didn't use any Access 2002 or
2003 -specific
objects or methods in the code, and didn't convert it into an MDE
database
file, then users with Access 2000 or newer will be able to use and read
the
database file.

If the file is in Access 2002-2003 database format, then the Access 2000
and
earlier versions won't be able to open the database. If you converted
it
into an MDE database file, then only users with Access 2003 will be able
to
open the file.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.

>I created databases on Access 2003 and I want to deploy them to users.
>My
> code was also done using 2003.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Please explain

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200605/1

May 12 '06 #7

P: n/a
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:nv******************************@adelphia.com :
My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't
even have to pay for our industrial database


Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .


Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.

This is one of the reasons I basically called the whole post
gibberish. It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 12 '06 #8

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .


Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.


I'm not familiar with MySql, but am about to jump into it in a big way
in the next little while, so forgive me if this sounds like a dopey
question, but...

Why could they not have changed db engines from jet to MySql? MySql has
odbc drivers, I would think, so linked tables or pass through queries
should be possible, similar to my own experience with Access and Oracle?
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
May 12 '06 #9

P: n/a
Hi, David.
Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.
I'm willing to cut some slack on use of terminology to people who post in
this newsgroup, as I'm an Oracle DBA who has worked with industrial
databases for a few of the largest corporations and government organizations
in America. If the data was migrated from an Access database whose maximum
capacity is 2 GB, then even after migration to another database engine it
just doesn't compare on the same scale to what I'm used to with Oracle.
However, most people who deal with Access are dealing with much a smaller
field of data sets and database applications than what I expect with Oracle
users, so their moving to any client/server database engine makes it likely
to seem "industrial" to them.
It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.
Yes. It does. But it was posted from the UK, so I'll assume it's not him.
Although he could be on vacation, I just don't imagine him going that far
away.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1... "'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:nv******************************@adelphia.com :
My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't
even have to pay for our industrial database


Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .


Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.

This is one of the reasons I basically called the whole post
gibberish. It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.

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

May 12 '06 #10

P: n/a
rkc
Tim Marshall wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .

Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.

I'm not familiar with MySql, but am about to jump into it in a big way
in the next little while, so forgive me if this sounds like a dopey
question, but...

Why could they not have changed db engines from jet to MySql? MySql has
odbc drivers, I would think, so linked tables or pass through queries
should be possible, similar to my own experience with Access and Oracle?


The point was they converted from Jet to MySQL.

You can link to MySQL tables using Access in the same way you
can link to any database that has had ODBC drivers written for it.

There are also OLEDB drivers available for MySQL.


May 12 '06 #11

P: n/a
On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:33:09 -0700, "'69 Camaro"
<Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM> wrote:
Hi, David.
Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.


I'm willing to cut some slack on use of terminology to people who post in
this newsgroup, as I'm an Oracle DBA who has worked with industrial
databases for a few of the largest corporations and government organizations
in America. If the data was migrated from an Access database whose maximum
capacity is 2 GB, then even after migration to another database engine it
just doesn't compare on the same scale to what I'm used to with Oracle.
However, most people who deal with Access are dealing with much a smaller
field of data sets and database applications than what I expect with Oracle
users, so their moving to any client/server database engine makes it likely
to seem "industrial" to them.
It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.


Yes. It does. But it was posted from the UK, so I'll assume it's not him.
Although he could be on vacation, I just don't imagine him going that far
away.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0 .1...
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:nv******************************@adelphia.com :
My firm actually managed to
convert access dbs to MySQL without too much trouble so we don't
even have to pay for our industrial database

Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .


Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.

This is one of the reasons I basically called the whole post
gibberish. It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.

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


Thans eveyone. As you all spotted, I am not a database expert. The
reason I had to mess around is that my boss wrote a case/document
management system in Access (Office 97) for our law firm.

However,when I got roped in to helping out with IT generally, I got
hold of a copy of Office 2003. In 03 I got a moan about the the
program being designed in the earlier version of Access so I did the
conversion and saved it as a separate database on our Share Point
server. However, I was the only one using 03 and the db had to run
for most on 97 so we did some smart stuff to run and synchronise the
two versions.

Later, we migrated all of the data to MySQL...he is the genius on
these things and I only recommended MySQL cos I have linux using geek
mate. My boss then moved the VBA and stuff around and we coninued to
operate the Case Management system using Access as a front end. It
still complained that the 97 designed front end would not work on the
03 version of Access but as they were by then both talking to the same
database, it was not a problem.

Sorry. I was not trolling and if I looked like I thought I know what
I am talking about I did not. I was just recounting what I did...have
no idea how to do it again but if it has been tripped on by a
non-expert like me, I am sure that you lot could sort it out.

Bye.
May 12 '06 #12

P: n/a
Bri
Tim Marshall wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .

Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.

I'm not familiar with MySql, but am about to jump into it in a big way
in the next little while, so forgive me if this sounds like a dopey
question, but...

Why could they not have changed db engines from jet to MySql? MySql has
odbc drivers, I would think, so linked tables or pass through queries
should be possible, similar to my own experience with Access and Oracle?


The converted Jet to MySQL not Access. So, they could change the engine
to MySQL but not the Application.

I haven't done a lot of work with MySQL myself (and none with Oracle)
but it seems to require similar application modifications to the apps I
have moved to an SQL Server backend. It has its own peculiarities on
what you need to do to be able to make the linked tables editable. And
it has its own flavor of SQL that you need to learn if you are doing
passthrough queries. I haven't even looked at SPs in it yet, so I can't
comment. So far, from an application develpment POV it is very similar
to SQL Server. From an 'industrial database' POV I don't know yet as I
haven't tried hitting it with more than a few users at a time. Others
here may have enough experience to expand on this.

--
Bri

May 12 '06 #13

P: n/a
Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in
news:e4**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Your firm didn't convert Access to MySQL. . . .
Not only that -- they also didn't convert to an "industrial
database," as MySQL is not even close, even with InnoDB tables.


I'm not familiar with MySql, but am about to jump into it in a big
way in the next little while, so forgive me if this sounds like a
dopey question, but...

Why could they not have changed db engines from jet to MySql? . .
.


Nobody said they didn't, only that they didn't convert from *Access*
to MySQL.
. . . MySql has
odbc drivers, I would think, so linked tables or pass through
queries
should be possible, similar to my own experience with Access and
Oracle?


You're missing the point, I think.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 12 '06 #14

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:Rv49g.155494$WI1.81426@pd7tw2no:
I haven't even looked at SPs in it yet, so I can't
comment. So far, from an application develpment POV it is very
similar to SQL Server. , , .
I'm not sure that MySQL has SPs. It may have added them very
recently, but historically, it has not had them. And you have to be
careful about choosing your data table format. The native MySQL ISAM
has no referential integrity enforcement, no transactions and lacks
a whole host of other features necessary for an industrial-strength
server database.
. . . From an 'industrial database' POV I don't know yet as I
haven't tried hitting it with more than a few users at a time.
Others here may have enough experience to expand on this.


I don't know if the InnoDB tables get rid of the table locking
problem.

MySQL was designed with optimization for primarily read access. This
means that writes are not as efficient as with other server
databases. One of the reasons for this is that, historically, MySQL
has no write locks more granular than table level. I don't know if
InnoDB tables get around that limitation or not.

And, of course, the maker of InnoDB is now owned by Oracle, so who
knows if it will continue to be free or not.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 12 '06 #15

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" wrote
This is one of the reasons I basically called the whole post
gibberish. It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.


Hmm. Original posted by "Mell via Access Monster.com". Could be!

May 13 '06 #16

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
Why could they not have changed db engines from jet to MySql? . .
Nobody said they didn't, only that they didn't convert from *Access*
to MySQL. You're missing the point, I think.


Got it now, I think. 8) Given our discussion in the past over
semantics of Access versus Jet, I'm surprised I didn't in the first
place. Too much nutra-sweet, I guess 8)

--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
May 13 '06 #17

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in
news:3ig9g.1684$_B5.777@trnddc01:
"David W. Fenton" wrote
This is one of the reasons I basically called the whole post
gibberish. It looked to me like one of Don Mellon's trolling
efforts.


Hmm. Original posted by "Mell via Access Monster.com". Could be!


But that's not the post we're discussing. We are talking about the
post by "Snuff," which is made from an IP address that belongs to an
ISP in Leeds, UK.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 13 '06 #18

P: n/a
Bri
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:Rv49g.155494$WI1.81426@pd7tw2no:

I haven't even looked at SPs in it yet, so I can't
comment. So far, from an application develpment POV it is very
similar to SQL Server. , , .

I'm not sure that MySQL has SPs. It may have added them very
recently, but historically, it has not had them.


They do have SPs and at first glance they seem similar to T-SQL, but I
really haven't looked at them closely. I try to keep as much of the
logic of an app in the FE rather than the BE so that moving the FE from
one engine to another is less painful. This means no SPs, minimal Views,
Linked tables and Passthrough Queries. Anyway, you can look at the
documentation for the SPs here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/...rocedures.html
And you have to be
careful about choosing your data table format. The native MySQL ISAM
has no referential integrity enforcement, no transactions and lacks
a whole host of other features necessary for an industrial-strength
server database.
Agreed. It is still only InnoDB tables that support Foreign Key
Constraints, although they are planning to implement it for MyISAM table
in the future.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/...nstraints.html

And InnoDB is stil the only one that supports Transactions:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/...ion-model.html
. . . From an 'industrial database' POV I don't know yet as I
haven't tried hitting it with more than a few users at a time.
Others here may have enough experience to expand on this.

I don't know if the InnoDB tables get rid of the table locking
problem.


I'm not sure what you mean by the locking problem, but there seems to be
a lot of control over how the locking is implimented:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/...ock-modes.html
MySQL was designed with optimization for primarily read access. This
means that writes are not as efficient as with other server
databases. One of the reasons for this is that, historically, MySQL
has no write locks more granular than table level. I don't know if
InnoDB tables get around that limitation or not.
See above.
And, of course, the maker of InnoDB is now owned by Oracle, so who
knows if it will continue to be free or not.


I didn't know that. That might explain why they are planning to add a
lot of these features to the default table type.

IMO, MySQL has a target demographic of applications that puts it in the
entry level of server based engines. If you need more than it can offer,
then you have to be prepared to pay for it. As it is free, you can't
expect it to be better than SQL Server or Oracle. :{)

--
Bri

May 13 '06 #19

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:L%o9g.159295$P01.56867@pd7tw3no:
IMO, MySQL has a target demographic of applications that puts it
in the entry level of server based engines. If you need more than
it can offer, then you have to be prepared to pay for it. As it is
free, you can't expect it to be better than SQL Server or Oracle.


I would agree. If you want an industrial strength open source
database, PostgreSQL is the way to go. Now that there's a native
Windows version (rather than a CYGWIN port), the security concerns
are no longer an issue.

And last time I checked, it outperformed MySQL, except on a few read
operations that are the kind MySQL was designed for. Of course,
MySQL gets away with not having to support a whole helluva lot of
features, and the tests were run against the MyISAM tables, since it
was way back when InnoDB was first coming out.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 13 '06 #20

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:L%o9g.159295$P01.56867@pd7tw3no:

IMO, MySQL has a target demographic of applications that puts it
in the entry level of server based engines. If you need more than
it can offer, then you have to be prepared to pay for it. As it is
free, you can't expect it to be better than SQL Server or Oracle.

I would agree. If you want an industrial strength open source
database, PostgreSQL is the way to go. Now that there's a native
Windows version (rather than a CYGWIN port), the security concerns
are no longer an issue.


I've heard of PostgreSQL but have never looked at it. The only reason
I've been looking at MySQL is because it it is included with my hosting
package along with Access. I would have to pay more to get the SQL
Server option, so I thought I would check it out and see what it was like.
And last time I checked, it outperformed MySQL, except on a few read
operations that are the kind MySQL was designed for. Of course,
MySQL gets away with not having to support a whole helluva lot of
features, and the tests were run against the MyISAM tables, since it
was way back when InnoDB was first coming out.


I can't comment on performace comparisons, but I have noticed that there
are a lot of commercial websites being powered by MySQL, so it must
perform reads well. I guess it makes sense as a web DB is going to have
a very high read/write ratio. As for features, after going through even
just a small portion of the online docs for MySQL I'm amazed at what it
does have and what it can do.

--
Bri

May 15 '06 #21

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:H92ag.165016$7a.139942@pd7tw1no:


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:L%o9g.159295$P01.56867@pd7tw3no:

IMO, MySQL has a target demographic of applications that puts it
in the entry level of server based engines. If you need more than
it can offer, then you have to be prepared to pay for it. As it
is free, you can't expect it to be better than SQL Server or
Oracle.

I would agree. If you want an industrial strength open source
database, PostgreSQL is the way to go. Now that there's a native
Windows version (rather than a CYGWIN port), the security
concerns are no longer an issue.


I've heard of PostgreSQL but have never looked at it. The only
reason I've been looking at MySQL is because it it is included
with my hosting package along with Access. I would have to pay
more to get the SQL Server option, so I thought I would check it
out and see what it was like.


I can understand that.

I don't know what it has to do with Access and MySQL, though, since
that isn't relevant to a hosted website.
And last time I checked, it outperformed MySQL, except on a few
read operations that are the kind MySQL was designed for. Of
course, MySQL gets away with not having to support a whole
helluva lot of features, and the tests were run against the
MyISAM tables, since it was way back when InnoDB was first coming
out.


I can't comment on performace comparisons, but I have noticed that
there are a lot of commercial websites being powered by MySQL, so
it must perform reads well. . . .


It was the first widely available free database and it's part of the
Linux/Apache/PHP package (with MySQL stuck in between Apache and
PHP, it's referred to as the LAMP platform).

It's fine for a lot of websites, but has problems with certain kinds
of web applications if you don't know what you are doing.
. . . I guess it makes sense as a web DB is going to have
a very high read/write ratio. As for features, after going through
even just a small portion of the online docs for MySQL I'm amazed
at what it does have and what it can do.


Well, be careful about what it does and doesn't do. My web host
provides MySQL, but with MyISAM, not InnoDB tables, so I don't get
any of the industrial-strength features. Also keep in mind that many
of the features that are claimed for MySQL are in more recent
versions than may be available on your web host, which of necessity,
must be conservative in rolling out new versions of shared
applications like MySQL.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 15 '06 #22

P: n/a
Bri
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:H92ag.165016$7a.139942@pd7tw1no:
I've heard of PostgreSQL but have never looked at it. The only
reason I've been looking at MySQL is because it it is included
with my hosting package along with Access. I would have to pay
more to get the SQL Server option, so I thought I would check it
out and see what it was like.

I can understand that.

I don't know what it has to do with Access and MySQL, though, since
that isn't relevant to a hosted website.


My hosting is with Brinkster and their Professional Package allows you
to host both Access MDB (Jet) databases and MySQL databases. You have to
go to their Developer Package to get an SQL server DB (at more than
twice the monthly cost).
It's fine for a lot of websites, but has problems with certain kinds
of web applications if you don't know what you are doing.
Any specifics or links to them? I've only begun to check them out, so
any headsup on possible pitfalls would be appreciated.
Well, be careful about what it does and doesn't do. My web host
provides MySQL, but with MyISAM, not InnoDB tables, so I don't get
any of the industrial-strength features.
Just checked and I was able to create InnoDB tables as well as MyIsam
tables. There is also options for several other types that I assume have
their pros and cons. (Memory, MERGE, NDB, BDB, ISAM)
Also keep in mind that many
of the features that are claimed for MySQL are in more recent
versions than may be available on your web host, which of necessity,
must be conservative in rolling out new versions of shared
applications like MySQL.


Just checked that too and I have ver 5.0.15, which is lower than the ver
5.1 on-line documentation I have been reading. I haven't found anything
in those docs that hasn't worked for me, but I hven't tried a lot of the
more exotic things yet either. I better see if they have the online docs
for the version I can actually use.

--
Bri

May 15 '06 #23

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:Og6ag.165254$7a.162981@pd7tw1no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:H92ag.165016$7a.139942@pd7tw1no:
I've heard of PostgreSQL but have never looked at it. The only
reason I've been looking at MySQL is because it it is included
with my hosting package along with Access. I would have to pay
more to get the SQL Server option, so I thought I would check it
out and see what it was like.

I can understand that.

I don't know what it has to do with Access and MySQL, though,
since that isn't relevant to a hosted website.


My hosting is with Brinkster and their Professional Package allows
you to host both Access MDB (Jet) databases and MySQL databases.
You have to go to their Developer Package to get an SQL server DB
(at more than twice the monthly cost).


They call it hosting an "Access" database, but what they mean is
hosting a *Jet* database, as you can't run an Access application off
your ISP's server.
It's fine for a lot of websites, but has problems with certain
kinds of web applications if you don't know what you are doing.


Any specifics or links to them? I've only begun to check them out,
so any headsup on possible pitfalls would be appreciated.


It has to do with connection management and writes and the MyISAM
table locking problems. Perhaps that's been ameliorated in later
versions, but it was a significant problem at one point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 15 '06 #24

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:

My hosting is with Brinkster and their Professional Package allows
you to host both Access MDB (Jet) databases and MySQL databases.
You have to go to their Developer Package to get an SQL server DB
(at more than twice the monthly cost).

They call it hosting an "Access" database, but what they mean is
hosting a *Jet* database, as you can't run an Access application off
your ISP's server.


Yes, I am aware of that. Via ASP I can create Recordsets and run
queries, but all other objects are unavailable. The masses don't know
enough to make the distinction between Access and Jet, so they market
them as Access databases.
Any specifics or links to them? I've only begun to check them out,
so any headsup on possible pitfalls would be appreciated.

It has to do with connection management and writes and the MyISAM
table locking problems. Perhaps that's been ameliorated in later
versions, but it was a significant problem at one point.


They have made a major update to their MyODBC package. The docs are
fairly adamant about the value of updating from the old one. So that may
address the connection issues. As for the writes and table locking
issues, it would seem that using the InnoDB tables is the answer to
that. The docs do point out that the MyISAM tables are optimized for
reads and do not support transactions or Foreign Key Constraints. So
they are meant for websites where the data is written very infrequently
and read by many. In that scenario, these issues would seldom arise as a
problem.

Thanks for the feedback on MySQL.

--
Bri

May 16 '06 #25

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:lynag.167454$7a.158986@pd7tw1no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
My hosting is with Brinkster and their Professional Package
allows you to host both Access MDB (Jet) databases and MySQL
databases. You have to go to their Developer Package to get an
SQL server DB (at more than twice the monthly cost).

They call it hosting an "Access" database, but what they mean is
hosting a *Jet* database, as you can't run an Access application
off your ISP's server.


Yes, I am aware of that. Via ASP I can create Recordsets and run
queries, but all other objects are unavailable. The masses don't
know enough to make the distinction between Access and Jet, so
they market them as Access databases.


The original context of the introduction of MySQL into this thread
was using MySQL as the back end for an Access application. Your
hosting situation has zilch to do with that scenario, and that was
my only point. It was something of a red herring, seems to me.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 16 '06 #26

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
The original context of the introduction of MySQL into this thread
was using MySQL as the back end for an Access application. Your
hosting situation has zilch to do with that scenario, and that was
my only point. It was something of a red herring, seems to me.


Actually, I connect to the MySQL database via MyODBC from an Access
frontend. I enter and maintain the data in this database. The database
is read by the users of it via ASP web pages. The host allows for both
types of connections. I'm in the planning stage of another application
using MySQL as the BE that has only MyODBC connections to the database
from an Access frontend as an alternative to Terminal Server for
organizations that are too small to be able to dedicate a box to TS.

I agree that we did stray off topic, but the original comments I posted
were about the issues I had with the Access FE to the MySQL BE.
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.d...fc044d5b6a5872

--
Bri

May 17 '06 #27

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:NyIag.170651$P01.126736@pd7tw3no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
The original context of the introduction of MySQL into this
thread was using MySQL as the back end for an Access application.
Your hosting situation has zilch to do with that scenario, and
that was my only point. It was something of a red herring, seems
to me.
Actually, I connect to the MySQL database via MyODBC from an
Access frontend. I enter and maintain the data in this database.
The database is read by the users of it via ASP web pages. The
host allows for both types of connections. . . .


I've never heard of that setup. Normally web hosts only allow local
connections.
. . . I'm in the planning stage of another application
using MySQL as the BE that has only MyODBC connections to the
database from an Access frontend as an alternative to Terminal
Server for organizations that are too small to be able to dedicate
a box to TS.
I really don't see how an organization that couldn't afford a
Terminal Server (it can be functioning as a file server at the same
time) could afford the work it would take to engineer a remote app
like that.
I agree that we did stray off topic, but the original comments I
posted were about the issues I had with the Access FE to the MySQL
BE.
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.d...s/tree/browse_
frm/thread/879a5bc7157cc3df/30fc044d5b6a5872?rnum=11&q=created+in+a
ccess+2003&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.databases.ms-access%2Fbrowse_frm%2
Fthread%2F879a5bc7157cc3df%2Fd82c8dc3869e9da2%3Ftv c%3D1%26q%3Dcreat
ed+in+access+2003%26#doc_30fc044d5b6a5872


I really don't believe you. I think you're fabricating.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 17 '06 #28

P: n/a
Bri
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:NyIag.170651$P01.126736@pd7tw3no:
Actually, I connect to the MySQL database via MyODBC from an
Access frontend. I enter and maintain the data in this database.
The database is read by the users of it via ASP web pages. The
host allows for both types of connections. . . .

I've never heard of that setup. Normally web hosts only allow local
connections.


I can't seem to find a reference in their support area that I can quote
from. I just downloaded MyODBC and put in the same connection info as
they supplied for connecting via ASP and it worked. Never occured to me
that they wouldn't allow it so I just did it.
I really don't see how an organization that couldn't afford a
Terminal Server (it can be functioning as a file server at the same
time) could afford the work it would take to engineer a remote app
like that.


Its a two person outfit. They have laptops, no server or network. The
amount of data they will be sending across the internet won't be large,
dozons of records per request at most. The app just has to make sure
that it doesn't bring over any extraneous data, as any client-server app
should do (no bound tables, just a query for the current record plus
child records).
I agree that we did stray off topic, but the original comments I
posted were about the issues I had with the Access FE to the MySQL
BE.
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.d...s/tree/browse_
frm/thread/879a5bc7157cc3df/30fc044d5b6a5872?rnum=11&q=created+in+a
ccess+2003&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.databases.ms-access%2Fbrowse_frm%2
Fthread%2F879a5bc7157cc3df%2Fd82c8dc3869e9da2%3F tvc%3D1%26q%3Dcreat
ed+in+access+2003%26#doc_30fc044d5b6a5872

I really don't believe you. I think you're fabricating.


That my original comments were on topic? Or that I have a functioning
Access FE - MySQL BE over the internet app? Believe what you want but
both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What proof do
you require other than my word? I don't like the implication that I am
making things up. I can prove everything I have stated in this thread.

--
Bri

May 18 '06 #29

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:G6Pag.172842$WI1.168410@pd7tw2no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
I really don't believe you. I think you're fabricating.


That my original comments were on topic? Or that I have a
functioning Access FE - MySQL BE over the internet app? . . .


The latter. No ISP that I know of will open the ports across the
Internet necessary to make an ODBC connection from outside.
. . . Believe what you want but
both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What
proof do you require other than my word? I don't like the
implication that I am making things up. I can prove everything I
have stated in this thread.


If you can't show on the ISP's website that they support it, then I
don't believe it. It's just not something any sensible ISP would do.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 18 '06 #30

P: n/a
Bri
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:G6Pag.172842$WI1.168410@pd7tw2no:
David W. Fenton wrote:

. . . Believe what you want but
both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What
proof do you require other than my word? I don't like the
implication that I am making things up. I can prove everything I
have stated in this thread.

If you can't show on the ISP's website that they support it, then I
don't believe it. It's just not something any sensible ISP would do.


Well, I found a page that explains how to connect to the db from your PC
using MySQL Administrator. It connects from the outside using the Server
name and port.
http://kb.brinkster.com/Kb.asp?kb=111189

In fact, my first hint of this was that the ASP connection is in fact an
external connection via a server. Here is my Connection string (Personal
info kludged of course):
dbConn = "DRIVER={MySQL ODBC 3.51 Driver};" & _
"Server=mysql.brinkster.com;" & _
"Database=mydatabasename;" & _
"Uid=myuserid;" & _
"Pwd=mypassword"

I entered the same info in the connection for MyODBC and it works. I
linked to the tables from the Access App using the MyODBC driver. I have
NO REASON to lie about this. In the face of this you should apologize to
me. I am not a lier.

--
Bri

May 18 '06 #31

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:RY1bg.173162$P01.155882@pd7tw3no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in
news:G6Pag.172842$WI1.168410@pd7tw2no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
. . . Believe what you want but
both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What
proof do you require other than my word? I don't like the
implication that I am making things up. I can prove everything I
have stated in this thread.

If you can't show on the ISP's website that they support it, then
I don't believe it. It's just not something any sensible ISP
would do.


Well, I found a page that explains how to connect to the db from
your PC using MySQL Administrator. It connects from the outside
using the Server name and port.
http://kb.brinkster.com/Kb.asp?kb=111189


I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant to
Access->MyODBC->MySQL, since that's a connection between MySQL
running locally to a remote instance of MySQL. Right?
In fact, my first hint of this was that the ASP connection is in
fact an external connection via a server. Here is my Connection
string (Personal info kludged of course):
dbConn = "DRIVER={MySQL ODBC 3.51 Driver};" & _
"Server=mysql.brinkster.com;" & _
"Database=mydatabasename;" & _
"Uid=myuserid;" & _
"Pwd=mypassword"

I entered the same info in the connection for MyODBC and it works.
I linked to the tables from the Access App using the MyODBC
driver. I have NO REASON to lie about this. In the face of this
you should apologize to me. I am not a lier.


Well, if you can do it then it shows that your ISP has opened up the
port to make it available across the Internet.

I would run as fast as possible from a host that did this by default
and publicized the port number. It just isn't safe to expose
database ports to the open Internet.

But it does appear that your host is doing it, so I retract any
accusation of fabrication.

But it isn't something I'd ever consider as a viable and secure way
for deploying an application.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 18 '06 #32

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:RY1bg.173162$P01.155882@pd7tw3no:

David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in
news:G6Pag.172842$WI1.168410@pd7tw2no:
David W. Fenton wrote:

. . . Believe what you want but
both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What
proof do you require other than my word? I don't like the
implication that I am making things up. I can prove everything I
have stated in this thread.
If you can't show on the ISP's website that they support it, then
I don't believe it. It's just not something any sensible ISP
would do.


Well, I found a page that explains how to connect to the db from
your PC using MySQL Administrator. It connects from the outside
using the Server name and port.
http://kb.brinkster.com/Kb.asp?kb=111189

I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant to
Access->MyODBC->MySQL, since that's a connection between MySQL
running locally to a remote instance of MySQL. Right?

In fact, my first hint of this was that the ASP connection is in
fact an external connection via a server. Here is my Connection
string (Personal info kludged of course):
dbConn = "DRIVER={MySQL ODBC 3.51 Driver};" & _
"Server=mysql.brinkster.com;" & _
"Database=mydatabasename;" & _
"Uid=myuserid;" & _
"Pwd=mypassword"

I entered the same info in the connection for MyODBC and it works.
I linked to the tables from the Access App using the MyODBC
driver. I have NO REASON to lie about this. In the face of this
you should apologize to me. I am not a lier.

Well, if you can do it then it shows that your ISP has opened up the
port to make it available across the Internet.

I would run as fast as possible from a host that did this by default
and publicized the port number. It just isn't safe to expose
database ports to the open Internet.

But it does appear that your host is doing it, so I retract any
accusation of fabrication.

But it isn't something I'd ever consider as a viable and secure way
for deploying an application.


The name of the server, the port number, and the name of the database
for my databse are only available to me. It is listed in the admin area
of my account maintenance. Each user will have a different combination,
and all database names are unique on the system. The example states that
the actual names are not the same as what they use in the example, they
do not publisize the actual info anywhere except in my admin area.
AFAIK, This is as secure as any external connection can be. They host
thousands of these databases and thousands of the other types (Jet and
SQL Server). In fact you can signup for their free account and get ASP
and Access(Jet) support. I've been using them for 6 years without any
problems. BTW, the Access(Jet) connection is via the ASP variable
Server.MapPath(pathToDatabase) so there seems to be no external
connections there. The documentation on the SQL Server points to a
server just like MySQL.

Apology accepted.

--
Bri

May 18 '06 #33

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:QA2bg.173141$7a.122587@pd7tw1no:


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in
news:RY1bg.173162$P01.155882@pd7tw3no:

David W. Fenton wrote:

Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in
news:G6Pag.172842$WI1.168410@pd7tw2no:
> David W. Fenton wrote:

>. . . Believe what you want but
>both are true. What reason would I have to lie about it? What
>proof do you require other than my word? I don't like the
>implication that I am making things up. I can prove everything
>I have stated in this thread.
If you can't show on the ISP's website that they support it,
then I don't believe it. It's just not something any sensible
ISP would do.

Well, I found a page that explains how to connect to the db from
your PC using MySQL Administrator. It connects from the outside
using the Server name and port.
http://kb.brinkster.com/Kb.asp?kb=111189

I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant to
Access->MyODBC->MySQL, since that's a connection between MySQL
running locally to a remote instance of MySQL. Right?

In fact, my first hint of this was that the ASP connection is in
fact an external connection via a server. Here is my Connection
string (Personal info kludged of course):
dbConn = "DRIVER={MySQL ODBC 3.51 Driver};" & _
"Server=mysql.brinkster.com;" & _
"Database=mydatabasename;" & _
"Uid=myuserid;" & _
"Pwd=mypassword"

I entered the same info in the connection for MyODBC and it
works. I linked to the tables from the Access App using the
MyODBC driver. I have NO REASON to lie about this. In the face of
this you should apologize to me. I am not a lier.

Well, if you can do it then it shows that your ISP has opened up
the port to make it available across the Internet.

I would run as fast as possible from a host that did this by
default and publicized the port number. It just isn't safe to
expose database ports to the open Internet.

But it does appear that your host is doing it, so I retract any
accusation of fabrication.

But it isn't something I'd ever consider as a viable and secure
way for deploying an application.


The name of the server, the port number, and the name of the
database for my databse are only available to me. It is listed in
the admin area of my account maintenance. Each user will have a
different combination, and all database names are unique on the
system. The example states that the actual names are not the same
as what they use in the example, they do not publisize the actual
info anywhere except in my admin area. AFAIK, This is as secure as
any external connection can be. . .


It's as secure as you can be with database ports open to the
Internet, yes.

But that's not secure under any scenario, as any port scanner could
hit an open port and do its thing. The fact that it's a
non-predictable port is no protection, since that's just "security
by obscurity."
. . . They host
thousands of these databases and thousands of the other types (Jet
and SQL Server). In fact you can signup for their free account and
get ASP and Access(Jet) support. I've been using them for 6 years
without any problems. BTW, the Access(Jet) connection is via the
ASP variable Server.MapPath(pathToDatabase) so there seems to be
no external connections there. The documentation on the SQL Server
points to a server just like MySQL.


I would not want to be an ISP offering this kind of service. It's
way too dangerous to have any but the bare minimum of ports open to
the Internet.

This kind of thing should only be done over a secure tunnel of some
sort, VPN, or, where passible, SSH.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 18 '06 #34

P: n/a
Bri
David W. Fenton wrote:
It's as secure as you can be with database ports open to the
Internet, yes.

But that's not secure under any scenario, as any port scanner could
hit an open port and do its thing. The fact that it's a
non-predictable port is no protection, since that's just "security
by obscurity."


Well, you still need a userid, password and database name. No "security
by obscurity" that I see. Knowing the server and port is only part of
the equation.
. . . They host
thousands of these databases and thousands of the other types (Jet
and SQL Server). In fact you can signup for their free account and
get ASP and Access(Jet) support. I've been using them for 6 years
without any problems. BTW, the Access(Jet) connection is via the
ASP variable Server.MapPath(pathToDatabase) so there seems to be
no external connections there. The documentation on the SQL Server
points to a server just like MySQL.

I would not want to be an ISP offering this kind of service. It's
way too dangerous to have any but the bare minimum of ports open to
the Internet.

This kind of thing should only be done over a secure tunnel of some
sort, VPN, or, where passible, SSH.


Yes, I agree this would be even better as it would also encrypt the data
packets. But for most situations it is likely secure enough. Contrary to
popular belief, most people's data is of no interest to anyone else. If
I was using this to process creditcards or identity data I would be more
worried, and more likely to setup the TS solution.

May 19 '06 #35

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:z18bg.173771$7a.47737@pd7tw1no:
David W. Fenton wrote:
It's as secure as you can be with database ports open to the
Internet, yes.

But that's not secure under any scenario, as any port scanner
could hit an open port and do its thing. The fact that it's a
non-predictable port is no protection, since that's just
"security by obscurity."
Well, you still need a userid, password and database name. No
"security by obscurity" that I see. Knowing the server and port is
only part of the equation.


You're assuming the server remains in a secured configuration. As we
well remember with SQL Server, there were lots of scenarios that
would result in the clearing of the sa password, and open up a
server that was thought to be secure to exploits.
. . . They host
thousands of these databases and thousands of the other types
(Jet and SQL Server). In fact you can signup for their free
account and get ASP and Access(Jet) support. I've been using them
for 6 years without any problems. BTW, the Access(Jet) connection
is via the ASP variable Server.MapPath(pathToDatabase) so there
seems to be no external connections there. The documentation on
the SQL Server points to a server just like MySQL.


I would not want to be an ISP offering this kind of service. It's
way too dangerous to have any but the bare minimum of ports open
to the Internet.

This kind of thing should only be done over a secure tunnel of
some sort, VPN, or, where passible, SSH.


Yes, I agree this would be even better as it would also encrypt
the data packets. But for most situations it is likely secure
enough.


Until it's not, of course.
. . . Contrary to
popular belief, most people's data is of no interest to anyone
else. If I was using this to process creditcards or identity data
I would be more worried, and more likely to setup the TS solution.


It's not a matter of the value of the data, a threat of theft. It's
a matter of loss of data, corruption of data or disruption of
availability due to an exploit. Secondly, an open database port
could be a vector for exploits not limited to the database server
itself that could bring down or compromise the server as a whole, or
other machines inside the network the server is on.

I think the fact that it's so very unusual for ISPs to provide
database connectivity over the open Internet should tell you what
you need to know about whether or not this is a safe configuration.
If it were safe and secure surely lots of ISPs would be offering the
service, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 19 '06 #36

P: n/a
> I am not a lier.

So glad you cleared that up. Perhaps you're a layer, instead? <g,d&r>

Gunny
May 19 '06 #37

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:z18bg.173771$7a.47737@pd7tw1no:
Well, you still need a userid, password and database name. No
"security by obscurity" that I see. Knowing the server and port is
only part of the equation.

You're assuming the server remains in a secured configuration. As we
well remember with SQL Server, there were lots of scenarios that
would result in the clearing of the sa password, and open up a
server that was thought to be secure to exploits.


That is their issue to deal with. They are hosting thousands of databases
so they have to be doing something about keeping it secure.
. . . Contrary to
popular belief, most people's data is of no interest to anyone
else. If I was using this to process creditcards or identity data
I would be more worried, and more likely to setup the TS solution.

It's not a matter of the value of the data, a threat of theft. It's
a matter of loss of data, corruption of data or disruption of
availability due to an exploit.


I agree.
Secondly, an open database port
could be a vector for exploits not limited to the database server
itself that could bring down or compromise the server as a whole, or
other machines inside the network the server is on.
I don't know enough on the subject, but I have to assume that they have
some sort of security in place to deal with this.
I think the fact that it's so very unusual for ISPs to provide
database connectivity over the open Internet should tell you what
you need to know about whether or not this is a safe configuration.
If it were safe and secure surely lots of ISPs would be offering the
service, no?


I just did a quick search of MySQL hosting and came across the hosting
offered by the MySQL people themselves. They offer the same type of
connectivity:
http://www.mysql.com/products/connector/odbc/

Also, I checked the connection reference page for ODBC fo MySQL and it
doesn't look like there is any other way to connect other than via a
server and anything other than a local db requires a port.
http://www.carlprothman.net/Default....DriverForMySQL

So far most of the other hosting sites I have found do not have info on
how they connect. I have found another that allows ODBC connections:
http://www.infinities.com/MySQL-hosting.cfm

None of the ones that had info on how they connect had an alternative to
connecting via a servername. Do you know of anyone hosting MySQL via a
different method?

--
Bri

May 19 '06 #38

P: n/a
Bri


'69 Camaro wrote:
I am not a lier.

So glad you cleared that up. Perhaps you're a layer, instead? <g,d&r>

Gunny


I guess I'm not much of speller either. :{)

--
Bri

May 19 '06 #39

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:0lnbg.175139$7a.128754@pd7tw1no:
None of the ones that had info on how they connect had an
alternative to connecting via a servername. Do you know of anyone
hosting MySQL via a different method?


Eh? What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about the connection method. I'm talking about
whether or not it's open outside the web host's local network. I've
only seen web hosts who allow database access within their own
network, not from outside on the Internet.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 19 '06 #40

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:0lnbg.175139$7a.128754@pd7tw1no:

None of the ones that had info on how they connect had an
alternative to connecting via a servername. Do you know of anyone
hosting MySQL via a different method?

Eh? What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about the connection method. I'm talking about
whether or not it's open outside the web host's local network. I've
only seen web hosts who allow database access within their own
network, not from outside on the Internet.


Both of the other sites I supplied links for had connections for Access
Applications connecting to MySQL databases over the internet using
MyODBC without any other potocol (ie open outside their local network,
security being DBname, ID, and PW only). This is the exact way I connect
with my host. So, three for three connect in the same way. None that I
could find connected in any other way (of those that bothered to mention
anything on the topic). Did you follow those links? You would have seen
on both of them that they referred to outside connections and even used
Access as an example.

I know you are a bright guy, so why are you having such a hard time
grasping this? You said, "nobody else does it, so it can't be secure", I
gave you two more examples of hosts that do and couldn't find any that
said you couldn't.

Not sure what else I can do to convince you.

--
Bri

May 19 '06 #41

P: n/a
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:wEqbg.175336$7a.137523@pd7tw1no:
I
gave you two more examples of hosts that do and couldn't find any
that said you couldn't.


They don't mention something that is ludicrous on the face of it.

Go to any generic hosting service and find out if you can connect to
their MySQL databases from outside their network. You can't.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 19 '06 #42

P: n/a
rkc
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:wEqbg.175336$7a.137523@pd7tw1no:

I
gave you two more examples of hosts that do and couldn't find any
that said you couldn't.

They don't mention something that is ludicrous on the face of it.

Go to any generic hosting service and find out if you can connect to
their MySQL databases from outside their network. You can't.


If your point here is that it's crazy for hosts to allow it, you may
be right.

If your point is that no one allows it, you couldn't be more wrong.
A few minutes spent with Google and reading support faq's shows it
to be a common practice with MySQL. Some hosts require that you
register your ip so thay can allow it through their firewall. Many
don't even require that.


May 20 '06 #43

P: n/a
Bri


David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <no*@here.com> wrote in news:wEqbg.175336$7a.137523@pd7tw1no:

I
gave you two more examples of hosts that do and couldn't find any
that said you couldn't.

They don't mention something that is ludicrous on the face of it.

Go to any generic hosting service and find out if you can connect to
their MySQL databases from outside their network. You can't.


You can, I do. You can lead a horse to water....

--
Bri

May 21 '06 #44

P: n/a
rkc <rk*@rochester.yabba.dabba.do.rr.bomb> wrote in
news:AS***************@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
If your point is that no one allows it, you couldn't be more
wrong. A few minutes spent with Google and reading support faq's
shows it to be a common practice with MySQL. Some hosts require
that you register your ip so thay can allow it through their
firewall. Many don't even require that.


All right, then -- my information is out of date. This was certainly
*not* the case back a few years ago when I did my research on web
hosts.

And, yes, I think it's a bad idea in general, though resticting by
IP basically takes away the biggest danger, in my opinion. I would
not consider a port validated by IP address to be "open to the
Internet," as it's only open to a small number of IP addresses.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
May 21 '06 #45

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

We are talking about the
post by "Snuff," which is made from an IP address that belongs to an
ISP in Leeds, UK.


And trust me, no-one goes there for a holiday!

Keith.
Jun 16 '06 #46

P: n/a
Keith Wilby wrote:
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

We are talking about the
post by "Snuff," which is made from an IP address that belongs to an
ISP in Leeds, UK.


And trust me, no-one goes there for a holiday!

Keith.


I did once. But that was only to visit some friends in med school.
You're right about the terrain not being that exciting. The Lake
District was more to my liking. Plus, Grasmere gingerbread, mmmm.

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com

That's NAUGHT a robin. -- Dr. Helen Williamson nee Downing

Jun 16 '06 #47

P: n/a
<CD********@FortuneJames.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...

The Lake
District was more to my liking. Plus, Grasmere gingerbread, mmmm.


I live on the outskirts of the LD :-)

Keith.
Jun 19 '06 #48

P: n/a
Keith Wilby wrote:
<CD********@FortuneJames.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...

The Lake
District was more to my liking. Plus, Grasmere gingerbread, mmmm.


I live on the outskirts of the LD :-)

Keith.


Words don't do enough to describe its beauty or the wonderful memories
it brings to mind.

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com

Jun 20 '06 #49

P: n/a
<CD********@FortuneJames.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Words don't do enough to describe its beauty or the wonderful memories
it brings to mind.


Enjoy :-)

http://www.visitcumbria.com/
Jun 20 '06 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.