David Portas (RE****************************@acm.org) writes:
What I had in mind was that you lose the performance advantage (compared
to a desktop database running on a network) of server-based processing.
And you sacrifice much of the resilience of transaction management and
logging.
You mean that rather running client on machine A and server on machine B,
we're running both server and client on A, and only have the database files
on B.
Yes, this is killing the client-server concept. (Ever heard of Visual
SourceSafe? That's an example of this architecture.)
I don't know why people want to put databases on network devices, but
my assumption is that the most common reason is simply space constraint
on the server, so they try to rent space somewhere else in the network.
In this case, I guess clients still connect from somewhere else.
But rather than renting the space, it's better to rent the entire disk
and move into cabinet. Or see your local hardware dealer...
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP,
so****@algonet.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp