How to do this?

[John]

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,
supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve this?
It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\)]

> supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband

connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database?
Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all
connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it
for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here; performance of server, Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou
understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do. Hope
you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in
a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data is -
do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,
supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve this? It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Not to mention, SBS2k would not allow you to expose a SQL server to be a
public backend to a database [however SBS2k3 does allow this]
Can you flip it to msde?

John Timney (Microsoft MVP) wrote:

supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database?

Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all
connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it
for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here;

performance of server,

Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou
understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do. Hope
you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in
a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data is -
do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,
supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

[Colin Basterfield]

Picking up on a good firewall, what would you recommend?

"John Timney (Microsoft MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of the internal database?
Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all
connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it
for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here;

performance of server,

Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou
understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do.

Hope you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data is -
do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally, supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[Colin Basterfield]

> Not to mention, SBS2k would not allow you to expose a SQL server to be a

public backend to a database [however SBS2k3 does allow this]
Can you flip it to msde?
Is it my understanding that you wouldn't be able to, for example display a
datagrid with info from this database with SBS2k?

Colin

"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sb******@pacbell.net>
wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Not to mention, SBS2k would not allow you to expose a SQL server to be a
public backend to a database [however SBS2k3 does allow this]
Can you flip it to msde?

John Timney (Microsoft MVP) wrote:

supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content ofthe internal database?

Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here;

performance of server,

Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do. Hope you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data is - do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content ofthe internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

[John]

We are using access. Is it possible/better to have another win2k machine in
the domain to run the web site off it? Will sbs2000 route internet traffic
to/from this member pc running IIS without problem?

Regards

"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sb******@pacbell.net>
wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Not to mention, SBS2k would not allow you to expose a SQL server to be a
public backend to a database [however SBS2k3 does allow this]
Can you flip it to msde?

John Timney (Microsoft MVP) wrote:

supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content ofthe internal database?

Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here;

performance of server,

Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do. Hope you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data is - do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content ofthe internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

[Mark Mancini]

a better solution......

Is this an Access db? You can easily port it to MySQL and php and put it on
a webserver for clients to access as well as yourslef. You can get PHP
programmers cheap!

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally,
supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of
the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve this? It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[John]

We will then have to change the internal access app which has taken years to
develop.

Regards
"Mark Mancini" <in**@NOSPAMmcse2000.com> wrote in message
news:OO*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

a better solution......

Is this an Access db? You can easily port it to MySQL and php and put it on a webserver for clients to access as well as yourslef. You can get PHP
programmers cheap!

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running internally, supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the content of the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]]

Since this is SBS 2000 you are hosting from, I'll start by clarifying to
anyone who isn't familiar with the SBS platform (but maybe was cross-posted
into this discussion) that the SBS suite include ISA Server (firewall), SQL
Server, Exchange Server and the SBS is required to be the root AD server as
a Domain Controller.

I'm replying at this point of the thread just to "include" the previous
comments made by others. As John Timney stated succinctly, I wools say you
probably can do this technically, you probably shouldn't do it
professionally.

SBS is a very busy box by default, a lot of stuff going on. Some people
consider SBS to be a house of cards, ready to collapse if you aren't
careful. I don't really subscribe to that thought, but it's a fair comment,
particularly when you start to extend the included technologies in the way
you have indicated....frankly, in the wrong way.

SBS 2000 is intended to be a server that is a gateway to the web as a
firewall via ISA, and to provide intranet functionality to the LAN with up
to 50 users. This is what you are doing. The problem is that you are then
wanting to do all that....and next you want to make it a fully functional
public web server, except you don't want to do that in the efficient way
that webservers would be designed....using SQL under the hood, nor are you
proposing to do that in the secure manner that represents a best
practice....a web server in DMZ.

Therefore, if I were being called in as a consultant, I would look at what
you are outlining and play the devils advocate of why this is a bad idea.
You are taking technology and not using it the way any best practice for the
individual components would be recommended. This is a lot like not using
best practices like never use a sharp knife and cut toward your hand, never
user a screwdriver as a chisel, never store dangerous chemicals in a reach
of children in your house. It's fine if you say...but I'm only slicing
butter, I'm just knocking caulk off of a tile, and I don't have any kids.

Let's look at a few of the best practice concepts that you aren't following:

- Don't expose shared resources on a DC to the web
- Don't expose and intranet site to the web
- Always place public IIS webserver in DMZ
- Isolate your front-end and backend web servers, and use a secure method
for handling the backend server such as SQL
- Minimize the functions on a webserver so that you can lock it down as much
as possible if it's exposed to the public, and particularly don't install
any applications not required for it's role as a web server.
- Don't run ISA on a server on a DNS server, DC, Exchange Server, or SQL
Server, and particularly not on one that you are exposing. (This is that
special rule about SBS servers where you are violating every rule of
deployment with ISA, except that the SBS product is tuned to use ISA as a
firewall to protect this server in those roles. However, at the point that
you expose all of these functions to traffic entering from all interfaces,
you really have gone over the edge of sanity in deployment.
- Don't place business critical assets on a server directly hosting public
and non-authenticated access.
- Avoid placing business critical assets required to keep your company
running hour by hour in a role that increases the risk of critical failures,
or extended recovery times. Diffuse your risk by protecting and simplifying
the most critical assets you have to improve your management options, and
critical response repair options.

I know, this is the point where someone asking the questions you are asking
typically says "But if all this is such a bad set of practices, them MS
should be telling people that they can buy an SBS to run their whole office
from in this way." Well, yeah, that's true, and I personally wish that MS
didn't give people the impression that what you are asking is even
plausible, much less supported. The fact is that SBS includes a broad range
of products, but I can assure you that it's not the thought that MS dev has
that anyone is going to deploy a server using everything that is possible to
do with any individual component, and yet do all of those things
concurrently on a single machine. It's not that the technology would prevent
it, it's more that common sense would suggest to you that at some point you
have to look at the cost of the entire company depending upon a group of
critical technologies.....and you have to see that you are overextending.

A company with 20 users internally and another 10 users remotely is
presumably paying something on the order of $3000-8000 per day in salary,
right? Oh, I suppose it could be less than that, but realistically, if this
company existed only to pay 20 people $5/hr each, and it had no other
business assets, therefore no other cashflow considerations, well then you
might have an argument for why you don't see the return on investment
arguments for adding more assets in order to better protect the assets you
are already producing income with.

Far to many small businesses fail to realize when they are underfunding
their business in terms of technology investments. Many SMBs see only cost
with the equipment, and they don't see productivity, or perhaps they don't
see how to measure the productivity as a separate distinction from "what if
this stopped working". The fact that SBS is as reliable as it is makes it
seem that it would be reasonable to run this one server right up to the
point that you have the CPU at 70%, the disk drives at 80% capacity, and the
users all being delayed just about 30 milliseconds less than the time it
takes for them to not lose their attention to their tasks. That's just
insane. There's no room to grow the business, or extend to the next
opportunity.

It's inherent in any business that there's a point where you have to look at
what you have that is working really well and then decide that you don't
push it further, you reinvest in the next place to grow the next thing to
support your business needs continuing to be met without increasing risk or
dramatically complicating the complexity of maintaining the overall
environment.
With all these things considered in total, I think you really should be
looking at a minimum of one more server, possible two, plus another firewall
to create a DMZ. You probably need a dedicated IIS server if that's the best
way to deploy your applications forward to the web. However, I would
question whether or not you really are doing yourself a favor by using a web
server interface to front end an Access database if the Access database is
really that critical to your customer solution and not something you can
work around with separate SQL presentation. Maybe you need to look at
putting a Terminal Server in for the external connections, but this could
depend upon whether the remote connections are by trusted and authenticated
users, or not.

The situation you describe sounds to me more like a scenario where I'm not
sure that you are looking at a big enough picture to understand what your
best options are for the company.....not for the technology, but for the
company. I would be inclined to want to know more about where this company
is going...and coming from...to understand if the way that you are handling
this process is leading you into a box you will regret, and maybe your best
options need to be putting a lot more on the table than just another IIS
server.

[John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\)]

For DSL the Thompson Alcatel 510v4 is good and cheap - very easy to
configure and has built in router / DHCP etc.

--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"Colin Basterfield" <co**************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Picking up on a good firewall, what would you recommend?

"John Timney (Microsoft MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the

content

of the internal database?
Yes - its viable, but with access its not really recommended. If they all

connect together then you will get concurrency problems, as long as the
connected users remains low then you should be OK. 10 might be pushing it for Access - you will have to try it and see.

As you can see there are several issues here;

performance of server,

Depends on how big your scripts are, and what they do - and on how well ou understand web system design.

security,
A doozy - you have lots of service packing and server hardening to do.

Hope

you have a good firewall too.

broadband bandwidth,
Not likely to be an issue with such a small user base.

access etc.
Read up on certificates, or work out a way to pass authentication details in

a secure way. Depends on how sensitive or mission critical your data

is - do you allow read, or read/write access etc.

Good luck.....
--
Regards

John Timney (Microsoft ASP.NET MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<shameless_author_plug>
Professional .NET for Java Developers with C#
ISBN:1-861007-91-4
Professional Windows Forms
ISBN: 1861005547
Professional JSP 2nd Edition
ISBN: 1861004958
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
ISBN: 1861002092
</shameless_author_plug>
----------------------------------------------

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running

internally, supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the

content of the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[John]

Thanks for the very comprehensive analysis of the situation. Appreciate that
very much.

As for access, all we are looking for is some very selected information to
be *viewed only* by some external users, so hopefully the load on access
will not too bad. In that case, would another server machine with IIS do the
trick (presumably it has to be win2k server and not win2k professional)?
Also, presumably it will be a member of the sbs domain. Also I presume the
best way is to get a second broadband connection for the new web server?

Thanks

Regards

"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <je**@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Since this is SBS 2000 you are hosting from, I'll start by clarifying to
anyone who isn't familiar with the SBS platform (but maybe was cross-posted into this discussion) that the SBS suite include ISA Server (firewall), SQL Server, Exchange Server and the SBS is required to be the root AD server as a Domain Controller.

I'm replying at this point of the thread just to "include" the previous
comments made by others. As John Timney stated succinctly, I wools say you
probably can do this technically, you probably shouldn't do it
professionally.

SBS is a very busy box by default, a lot of stuff going on. Some people
consider SBS to be a house of cards, ready to collapse if you aren't
careful. I don't really subscribe to that thought, but it's a fair comment, particularly when you start to extend the included technologies in the way
you have indicated....frankly, in the wrong way.

SBS 2000 is intended to be a server that is a gateway to the web as a
firewall via ISA, and to provide intranet functionality to the LAN with up
to 50 users. This is what you are doing. The problem is that you are then
wanting to do all that....and next you want to make it a fully functional
public web server, except you don't want to do that in the efficient way
that webservers would be designed....using SQL under the hood, nor are you
proposing to do that in the secure manner that represents a best
practice....a web server in DMZ.

Therefore, if I were being called in as a consultant, I would look at what
you are outlining and play the devils advocate of why this is a bad idea.
You are taking technology and not using it the way any best practice for the individual components would be recommended. This is a lot like not using
best practices like never use a sharp knife and cut toward your hand, never user a screwdriver as a chisel, never store dangerous chemicals in a reach
of children in your house. It's fine if you say...but I'm only slicing
butter, I'm just knocking caulk off of a tile, and I don't have any kids.

Let's look at a few of the best practice concepts that you aren't following:
- Don't expose shared resources on a DC to the web
- Don't expose and intranet site to the web
- Always place public IIS webserver in DMZ
- Isolate your front-end and backend web servers, and use a secure method
for handling the backend server such as SQL
- Minimize the functions on a webserver so that you can lock it down as much as possible if it's exposed to the public, and particularly don't install
any applications not required for it's role as a web server.
- Don't run ISA on a server on a DNS server, DC, Exchange Server, or SQL
Server, and particularly not on one that you are exposing. (This is that
special rule about SBS servers where you are violating every rule of
deployment with ISA, except that the SBS product is tuned to use ISA as a
firewall to protect this server in those roles. However, at the point that
you expose all of these functions to traffic entering from all interfaces,
you really have gone over the edge of sanity in deployment.
- Don't place business critical assets on a server directly hosting public
and non-authenticated access.
- Avoid placing business critical assets required to keep your company
running hour by hour in a role that increases the risk of critical failures, or extended recovery times. Diffuse your risk by protecting and simplifying the most critical assets you have to improve your management options, and
critical response repair options.

I know, this is the point where someone asking the questions you are asking typically says "But if all this is such a bad set of practices, them MS
should be telling people that they can buy an SBS to run their whole office from in this way." Well, yeah, that's true, and I personally wish that MS
didn't give people the impression that what you are asking is even
plausible, much less supported. The fact is that SBS includes a broad range of products, but I can assure you that it's not the thought that MS dev has that anyone is going to deploy a server using everything that is possible to do with any individual component, and yet do all of those things
concurrently on a single machine. It's not that the technology would prevent it, it's more that common sense would suggest to you that at some point you have to look at the cost of the entire company depending upon a group of
critical technologies.....and you have to see that you are overextending.

A company with 20 users internally and another 10 users remotely is
presumably paying something on the order of $3000-8000 per day in salary,
right? Oh, I suppose it could be less than that, but realistically, if this company existed only to pay 20 people $5/hr each, and it had no other
business assets, therefore no other cashflow considerations, well then you
might have an argument for why you don't see the return on investment
arguments for adding more assets in order to better protect the assets you
are already producing income with.

Far to many small businesses fail to realize when they are underfunding
their business in terms of technology investments. Many SMBs see only cost
with the equipment, and they don't see productivity, or perhaps they don't
see how to measure the productivity as a separate distinction from "what if this stopped working". The fact that SBS is as reliable as it is makes it
seem that it would be reasonable to run this one server right up to the
point that you have the CPU at 70%, the disk drives at 80% capacity, and the users all being delayed just about 30 milliseconds less than the time it
takes for them to not lose their attention to their tasks. That's just
insane. There's no room to grow the business, or extend to the next
opportunity.

It's inherent in any business that there's a point where you have to look at what you have that is working really well and then decide that you don't
push it further, you reinvest in the next place to grow the next thing to
support your business needs continuing to be met without increasing risk or dramatically complicating the complexity of maintaining the overall
environment.
With all these things considered in total, I think you really should be
looking at a minimum of one more server, possible two, plus another firewall to create a DMZ. You probably need a dedicated IIS server if that's the best way to deploy your applications forward to the web. However, I would
question whether or not you really are doing yourself a favor by using a web server interface to front end an Access database if the Access database is
really that critical to your customer solution and not something you can
work around with separate SQL presentation. Maybe you need to look at
putting a Terminal Server in for the external connections, but this could
depend upon whether the remote connections are by trusted and authenticated users, or not.

The situation you describe sounds to me more like a scenario where I'm not
sure that you are looking at a big enough picture to understand what your
best options are for the company.....not for the technology, but for the
company. I would be inclined to want to know more about where this company
is going...and coming from...to understand if the way that you are handling this process is leading you into a box you will regret, and maybe your best options need to be putting a lot more on the table than just another IIS
server.

[Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]]

To address your follow-up questions, I'm sort of having to buy into some
conditions that are complex to swallow without more details. For instance,
typically one things of an Access database as either a relational database
with the Tables, Forms and Reports in a single MDB file, or you might have a
front-end/Back-end arrangement to split the security and management apart.
Regardless, I would normally think that you would not expect to do things
like ODBC in order to hook to the backend database from more than one
frontend. Therefore, when you speak of splitting a frontend to an IIS
server, the question would return to "what are you trying to accomplish"
because if you are looking to increase security, you have to consider that
you would need to figure out how to secure the ability to hook from inside
the LAN and from outside the LAN to the same database, and yet secure it. If
the theory is that you are going to authenticate your users, my question
would return to questioning if a basic IIS server facing the public really
simplifies your problem or creates it.

One option would be to devise a way to provide a secure connection to the
remote users, but I don't have the information to know if you are referring
to 10 people at a different site, or if it's ten specific computers that
travel, or if we are talking an average of 10 customers from various places
that changes day to day. There's a lot here that sort of defies the simple
answer.

As for putting the server in DMZ and part of the domain, this is going to be
entirely debatable to how you would plan to address the previous topic.

This is why I was suggesting at the end of my last post that I would expect
to backaway from the technology a little bit to look at the business plan
first, then let the technical requirements feed the discussion of what
should be done to meet the business needs and still secure all aspects, and
address the technical issues you can't change (like switching to SQL from
Access which is probably the single most valuable change you could make in
this situation).

There's plenty of room for debate on how you would address a redesign of
this package, but one possible way of going after it might be to actually
use a Terminal Server hiding behind an IIS Server using TSAC plug-in. I
suggest this only because it moves the data access back into a world very
familiar to Access, it provides you the opportunity to make the IIS server a
forward placed DMZ server where you authenticate first and then get a tunnel
into the TS. It means that your development remains firmly in the world of
Access, without pushing you to deal with lowest common denominator
conditions on trying to front a website on an Access database that you have
overloaded and really need to have on SQL. My thinking is that a pretty
cheap webserver in DMZ, plus a fairly simple TS Apps mode server would
address everything fairly well without making the security more of a
nightmare than the definition of the problem itself has created....sharing
an Access database inside and outside the LAN from your PDC acting as the
firewall. At least the use of a DMZ webserver filters the traffic at the
front firewall, you then authenticate at the webserver, you have the option
to authenticate again at the TS, the TS can be behind the second firewall
and part of your domain, and the IIS can be which ever way you want to go on
domain membership or not.

Once your TS session is running, you have no special development issues to
deal with in Access other than what you are already doing for your LAN based
users....you simple make your remote users limited to read-only on the forms
and reports, and lock them out of direct access to the tables. From a cost
standpoint, you have a fairly reasonable solution and you have spread the
load around. You could even put the Access database on the TS itself and
make all users run a TS session to hit the database file directly, though
here again you will reveal that 30 users on a single Access database may be
getting a bit on the highend, but at least you wouldn't be putting that
traffic load on the SBS itself anymore. You would have IIS load of the SBS,
the file service off, and you could choose to use ISA for the firewall or
not for the TS tunneling system. Invested cost in this would be starting at
about $4000 for the pair of servers (other than Windows and TS CALs).

After you have devised whatever you consider to be your "best idea", if it's
something like what I proposed or something different, you will at least
have something you can put a cost on and compare to the other options you
previously discussed and you can make a reality check decision. It wouldn't
surprise me in the least if someone else reading this thread in a different
group were to post back with totally opposite ideas about how to do this, or
even arguing that ~your way~ makes more sense to them. To such a comment, I
would only say that I spend the majority of my IT life supporting SBS based
sites, and designing them for stability and security based upon relative ROI
considerations. Everything about this would be a compromise because that's
what running an SMB business or being a consultant is all about....being
successful at getting your best ROI in a compromise situation.
"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eF**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Thanks for the very comprehensive analysis of the situation. Appreciate that very much.

As for access, all we are looking for is some very selected information to
be *viewed only* by some external users, so hopefully the load on access
will not too bad. In that case, would another server machine with IIS do the trick (presumably it has to be win2k server and not win2k professional)?
Also, presumably it will be a member of the sbs domain. Also I presume the
best way is to get a second broadband connection for the new web server?

Thanks

Regards

"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <je**@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Since this is SBS 2000 you are hosting from, I'll start by clarifying to
anyone who isn't familiar with the SBS platform (but maybe was cross-posted

into this discussion) that the SBS suite include ISA Server (firewall),

SQL

Server, Exchange Server and the SBS is required to be the root AD server

as

a Domain Controller.

I'm replying at this point of the thread just to "include" the previous
comments made by others. As John Timney stated succinctly, I wools say you probably can do this technically, you probably shouldn't do it
professionally.

SBS is a very busy box by default, a lot of stuff going on. Some people
consider SBS to be a house of cards, ready to collapse if you aren't
careful. I don't really subscribe to that thought, but it's a fair

comment,

particularly when you start to extend the included technologies in the way you have indicated....frankly, in the wrong way.

SBS 2000 is intended to be a server that is a gateway to the web as a
firewall via ISA, and to provide intranet functionality to the LAN with up to 50 users. This is what you are doing. The problem is that you are then wanting to do all that....and next you want to make it a fully functional public web server, except you don't want to do that in the efficient way
that webservers would be designed....using SQL under the hood, nor are you proposing to do that in the secure manner that represents a best
practice....a web server in DMZ.

Therefore, if I were being called in as a consultant, I would look at what you are outlining and play the devils advocate of why this is a bad idea. You are taking technology and not using it the way any best practice for

the

individual components would be recommended. This is a lot like not using
best practices like never use a sharp knife and cut toward your hand,

never

user a screwdriver as a chisel, never store dangerous chemicals in a reach of children in your house. It's fine if you say...but I'm only slicing
butter, I'm just knocking caulk off of a tile, and I don't have any kids.
Let's look at a few of the best practice concepts that you aren't

following:

- Don't expose shared resources on a DC to the web
- Don't expose and intranet site to the web
- Always place public IIS webserver in DMZ
- Isolate your front-end and backend web servers, and use a secure method for handling the backend server such as SQL
- Minimize the functions on a webserver so that you can lock it down as

much

as possible if it's exposed to the public, and particularly don't install any applications not required for it's role as a web server.
- Don't run ISA on a server on a DNS server, DC, Exchange Server, or SQL
Server, and particularly not on one that you are exposing. (This is that
special rule about SBS servers where you are violating every rule of
deployment with ISA, except that the SBS product is tuned to use ISA as a firewall to protect this server in those roles. However, at the point that you expose all of these functions to traffic entering from all interfaces, you really have gone over the edge of sanity in deployment.
- Don't place business critical assets on a server directly hosting public and non-authenticated access.
- Avoid placing business critical assets required to keep your company
running hour by hour in a role that increases the risk of critical

failures,

or extended recovery times. Diffuse your risk by protecting and

simplifying

the most critical assets you have to improve your management options, and critical response repair options.

I know, this is the point where someone asking the questions you are

asking

typically says "But if all this is such a bad set of practices, them MS
should be telling people that they can buy an SBS to run their whole

office

from in this way." Well, yeah, that's true, and I personally wish that MS didn't give people the impression that what you are asking is even
plausible, much less supported. The fact is that SBS includes a broad

range

of products, but I can assure you that it's not the thought that MS dev

has

that anyone is going to deploy a server using everything that is possible to

do with any individual component, and yet do all of those things
concurrently on a single machine. It's not that the technology would prevent

it, it's more that common sense would suggest to you that at some point

you

have to look at the cost of the entire company depending upon a group of
critical technologies.....and you have to see that you are

overextending.
A company with 20 users internally and another 10 users remotely is
presumably paying something on the order of $3000-8000 per day in salary, right? Oh, I suppose it could be less than that, but realistically, if

this

company existed only to pay 20 people $5/hr each, and it had no other
business assets, therefore no other cashflow considerations, well then you might have an argument for why you don't see the return on investment
arguments for adding more assets in order to better protect the assets you are already producing income with.

Far to many small businesses fail to realize when they are underfunding
their business in terms of technology investments. Many SMBs see only cost with the equipment, and they don't see productivity, or perhaps they don't see how to measure the productivity as a separate distinction from "what

if

this stopped working". The fact that SBS is as reliable as it is makes it seem that it would be reasonable to run this one server right up to the
point that you have the CPU at 70%, the disk drives at 80% capacity, and

the

users all being delayed just about 30 milliseconds less than the time it
takes for them to not lose their attention to their tasks. That's just
insane. There's no room to grow the business, or extend to the next
opportunity.

It's inherent in any business that there's a point where you have to look at

what you have that is working really well and then decide that you don't
push it further, you reinvest in the next place to grow the next thing

to support your business needs continuing to be met without increasing risk

or

dramatically complicating the complexity of maintaining the overall
environment.
With all these things considered in total, I think you really should be
looking at a minimum of one more server, possible two, plus another

firewall

to create a DMZ. You probably need a dedicated IIS server if that's the

best

way to deploy your applications forward to the web. However, I would
question whether or not you really are doing yourself a favor by using a

web

server interface to front end an Access database if the Access database is really that critical to your customer solution and not something you can
work around with separate SQL presentation. Maybe you need to look at
putting a Terminal Server in for the external connections, but this could depend upon whether the remote connections are by trusted and

authenticated

users, or not.

The situation you describe sounds to me more like a scenario where I'm not sure that you are looking at a big enough picture to understand what your best options are for the company.....not for the technology, but for the
company. I would be inclined to want to know more about where this company is going...and coming from...to understand if the way that you are

handling

this process is leading you into a box you will regret, and maybe your

best

options need to be putting a lot more on the table than just another IIS
server.

[John]

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things in detail. In access we
have a front-end/back-end situation where all tables are in the back end and
everything else; forms, queries, are in the front end. Is it feasible to
move the backend tables to the SQL Server and link the sql server tables in
the access front end? It will not help access desktop app as all processing
will still be done by access but the web app can presumably benefit from
tables being on the SQL Server? Then over time we can re-write the desktop
app to be native sql.

Thanks

Regards
"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <je**@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

To address your follow-up questions, I'm sort of having to buy into some
conditions that are complex to swallow without more details. For instance,
typically one things of an Access database as either a relational database
with the Tables, Forms and Reports in a single MDB file, or you might have a front-end/Back-end arrangement to split the security and management apart.
Regardless, I would normally think that you would not expect to do things
like ODBC in order to hook to the backend database from more than one
frontend. Therefore, when you speak of splitting a frontend to an IIS
server, the question would return to "what are you trying to accomplish"
because if you are looking to increase security, you have to consider that
you would need to figure out how to secure the ability to hook from inside
the LAN and from outside the LAN to the same database, and yet secure it. If the theory is that you are going to authenticate your users, my question
would return to questioning if a basic IIS server facing the public really
simplifies your problem or creates it.

One option would be to devise a way to provide a secure connection to the
remote users, but I don't have the information to know if you are referring to 10 people at a different site, or if it's ten specific computers that
travel, or if we are talking an average of 10 customers from various places that changes day to day. There's a lot here that sort of defies the simple answer.

As for putting the server in DMZ and part of the domain, this is going to be entirely debatable to how you would plan to address the previous topic.

This is why I was suggesting at the end of my last post that I would expect to backaway from the technology a little bit to look at the business plan
first, then let the technical requirements feed the discussion of what
should be done to meet the business needs and still secure all aspects, and address the technical issues you can't change (like switching to SQL from
Access which is probably the single most valuable change you could make in
this situation).

There's plenty of room for debate on how you would address a redesign of
this package, but one possible way of going after it might be to actually
use a Terminal Server hiding behind an IIS Server using TSAC plug-in. I
suggest this only because it moves the data access back into a world very
familiar to Access, it provides you the opportunity to make the IIS server a forward placed DMZ server where you authenticate first and then get a tunnel into the TS. It means that your development remains firmly in the world of
Access, without pushing you to deal with lowest common denominator
conditions on trying to front a website on an Access database that you have overloaded and really need to have on SQL. My thinking is that a pretty
cheap webserver in DMZ, plus a fairly simple TS Apps mode server would
address everything fairly well without making the security more of a
nightmare than the definition of the problem itself has created....sharing
an Access database inside and outside the LAN from your PDC acting as the
firewall. At least the use of a DMZ webserver filters the traffic at the
front firewall, you then authenticate at the webserver, you have the option to authenticate again at the TS, the TS can be behind the second firewall
and part of your domain, and the IIS can be which ever way you want to go on domain membership or not.

Once your TS session is running, you have no special development issues to
deal with in Access other than what you are already doing for your LAN based users....you simple make your remote users limited to read-only on the forms and reports, and lock them out of direct access to the tables. From a cost
standpoint, you have a fairly reasonable solution and you have spread the
load around. You could even put the Access database on the TS itself and
make all users run a TS session to hit the database file directly, though
here again you will reveal that 30 users on a single Access database may be getting a bit on the highend, but at least you wouldn't be putting that
traffic load on the SBS itself anymore. You would have IIS load of the SBS, the file service off, and you could choose to use ISA for the firewall or
not for the TS tunneling system. Invested cost in this would be starting at about $4000 for the pair of servers (other than Windows and TS CALs).

After you have devised whatever you consider to be your "best idea", if it's something like what I proposed or something different, you will at least
have something you can put a cost on and compare to the other options you
previously discussed and you can make a reality check decision. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone else reading this thread in a different group were to post back with totally opposite ideas about how to do this, or even arguing that ~your way~ makes more sense to them. To such a comment, I would only say that I spend the majority of my IT life supporting SBS based sites, and designing them for stability and security based upon relative ROI considerations. Everything about this would be a compromise because that's
what running an SMB business or being a consultant is all about....being
successful at getting your best ROI in a compromise situation.
"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eF**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Thanks for the very comprehensive analysis of the situation. Appreciate that

very much.

As for access, all we are looking for is some very selected information to

be *viewed only* by some external users, so hopefully the load on access
will not too bad. In that case, would another server machine with IIS do

the

trick (presumably it has to be win2k server and not win2k professional)?
Also, presumably it will be a member of the sbs domain. Also I presume the best way is to get a second broadband connection for the new web server?

Thanks

Regards

"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <je**@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Since this is SBS 2000 you are hosting from, I'll start by clarifying to anyone who isn't familiar with the SBS platform (but maybe was

cross-posted

into this discussion) that the SBS suite include ISA Server (firewall),

SQL

Server, Exchange Server and the SBS is required to be the root AD

server as

a Domain Controller.

I'm replying at this point of the thread just to "include" the

previous comments made by others. As John Timney stated succinctly, I wools say

you probably can do this technically, you probably shouldn't do it
professionally.

SBS is a very busy box by default, a lot of stuff going on. Some people consider SBS to be a house of cards, ready to collapse if you aren't
careful. I don't really subscribe to that thought, but it's a fair

comment,

particularly when you start to extend the included technologies in the way you have indicated....frankly, in the wrong way.

SBS 2000 is intended to be a server that is a gateway to the web as a
firewall via ISA, and to provide intranet functionality to the LAN with up

to 50 users. This is what you are doing. The problem is that you are then wanting to do all that....and next you want to make it a fully functional public web server, except you don't want to do that in the efficient

way that webservers would be designed....using SQL under the hood, nor are

you proposing to do that in the secure manner that represents a best
practice....a web server in DMZ.

Therefore, if I were being called in as a consultant, I would look at what you are outlining and play the devils advocate of why this is a bad idea. You are taking technology and not using it the way any best practice for the

individual components would be recommended. This is a lot like not

using best practices like never use a sharp knife and cut toward your hand,

never

user a screwdriver as a chisel, never store dangerous chemicals in a reach of children in your house. It's fine if you say...but I'm only slicing
butter, I'm just knocking caulk off of a tile, and I don't have any kids.
Let's look at a few of the best practice concepts that you aren't

following:

- Don't expose shared resources on a DC to the web
- Don't expose and intranet site to the web
- Always place public IIS webserver in DMZ
- Isolate your front-end and backend web servers, and use a secure method for handling the backend server such as SQL
- Minimize the functions on a webserver so that you can lock it down as much

as possible if it's exposed to the public, and particularly don't install any applications not required for it's role as a web server.
- Don't run ISA on a server on a DNS server, DC, Exchange Server, or

SQL Server, and particularly not on one that you are exposing. (This is that special rule about SBS servers where you are violating every rule of
deployment with ISA, except that the SBS product is tuned to use ISA as a firewall to protect this server in those roles. However, at the point that you expose all of these functions to traffic entering from all interfaces, you really have gone over the edge of sanity in deployment.
- Don't place business critical assets on a server directly hosting public and non-authenticated access.
- Avoid placing business critical assets required to keep your company
running hour by hour in a role that increases the risk of critical failures,

or extended recovery times. Diffuse your risk by protecting and

simplifying

the most critical assets you have to improve your management options, and critical response repair options.

I know, this is the point where someone asking the questions you are

asking

typically says "But if all this is such a bad set of practices, them

MS should be telling people that they can buy an SBS to run their whole

office

from in this way." Well, yeah, that's true, and I personally wish that MS didn't give people the impression that what you are asking is even
plausible, much less supported. The fact is that SBS includes a broad

range

of products, but I can assure you that it's not the thought that MS dev has

that anyone is going to deploy a server using everything that is possible

to

do with any individual component, and yet do all of those things
concurrently on a single machine. It's not that the technology would

prevent

it, it's more that common sense would suggest to you that at some

point you

have to look at the cost of the entire company depending upon a group

of critical technologies.....and you have to see that you are

overextending.
A company with 20 users internally and another 10 users remotely is
presumably paying something on the order of $3000-8000 per day in salary, right? Oh, I suppose it could be less than that, but realistically, if

this

company existed only to pay 20 people $5/hr each, and it had no other
business assets, therefore no other cashflow considerations, well then you might have an argument for why you don't see the return on investment
arguments for adding more assets in order to better protect the assets you are already producing income with.

Far to many small businesses fail to realize when they are underfunding their business in terms of technology investments. Many SMBs see only cost with the equipment, and they don't see productivity, or perhaps they don't see how to measure the productivity as a separate distinction from "what if

this stopped working". The fact that SBS is as reliable as it is makes it seem that it would be reasonable to run this one server right up to

the point that you have the CPU at 70%, the disk drives at 80% capacity, and

the

users all being delayed just about 30 milliseconds less than the time

it takes for them to not lose their attention to their tasks. That's just
insane. There's no room to grow the business, or extend to the next
opportunity.

It's inherent in any business that there's a point where you have to

look

at

what you have that is working really well and then decide that you don't push it further, you reinvest in the next place to grow the next thing

to support your business needs continuing to be met without increasing risk or

dramatically complicating the complexity of maintaining the overall
environment.
With all these things considered in total, I think you really should

be looking at a minimum of one more server, possible two, plus another

firewall

to create a DMZ. You probably need a dedicated IIS server if that's the

best

way to deploy your applications forward to the web. However, I would
question whether or not you really are doing yourself a favor by using

a web

server interface to front end an Access database if the Access

database is really that critical to your customer solution and not something you

can work around with separate SQL presentation. Maybe you need to look at
putting a Terminal Server in for the external connections, but this

could depend upon whether the remote connections are by trusted and

authenticated

users, or not.

The situation you describe sounds to me more like a scenario where I'm not sure that you are looking at a big enough picture to understand what your best options are for the company.....not for the technology, but for the company. I would be inclined to want to know more about where this company is going...and coming from...to understand if the way that you are

handling

this process is leading you into a box you will regret, and maybe your

best

options need to be putting a lot more on the table than just another IIS server.

[Mark Mancini]

Ok, so how much and how long do you think it will take to do this? I am
sure that it is less than you think.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

We will then have to change the internal access app which has taken years to develop.

Regards
"Mark Mancini" <in**@NOSPAMmcse2000.com> wrote in message
news:OO*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

a better solution......

Is this an Access db? You can easily port it to MySQL and php and put it

on

a webserver for clients to access as well as yourslef. You can get PHP
programmers cheap!

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running

internally, supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the

content of the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards

[Mark Mancini]

how much are you going to spend on time and firewall and I am thinking this
will still be cheaper.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

We will then have to change the internal access app which has taken years to develop.

Regards
"Mark Mancini" <in**@NOSPAMmcse2000.com> wrote in message
news:OO*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

a better solution......

Is this an Access db? You can easily port it to MySQL and php and put it

on

a webserver for clients to access as well as yourslef. You can get PHP
programmers cheap!

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com

"John" <jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hi

We have an SBS2000 server which has an access database running

internally, supporting around 20 users. The server is connected to a broadband
connection. Is it viable for us to run an asp.net web site on the same
server that allows visitors (around ten on average) to view the

content of the internal database? As you can see there are several issues here;
performance of server, security, broadband bandwidth, access etc.

If this is not feasible, what would be the recommended way to achieve

this?

It is not possible to rewrite access database for SQL server just now.

Thanks

Regards