Improving performance over the WAN

David Mueller wrote:
> First, I do know better but I'm doing it anyway.
>
> Second, without adding any technology (MS SQL, TS, ...) is there
> anything I can do to optimize MS Access for use over the WAN? If I
> can tweak one, single, solitary, obscure,
> hardly-ever-heard-of-and-maybe-not-even-published setting I'll feel
> better about the whole situation.
>
> Thanks,
> David

You can make the entire file easy to replace for when it gets trashed.
Otherwise all you can do is make changes such that you are pulling the
absolute least amount of data and writing to disk as infrequently as
possible.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

David Mueller <DavidMueller.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Second, without adding any technology (MS SQL, TS, ...) is there anything I
>can do to optimize MS Access for use over the WAN? If I can tweak one,
>single, solitary, obscure, hardly-ever-heard-of-and-maybe-not-even-published
>setting I'll feel better about the whole situation.

Note that you are at a very high risk of corruption. Best wishes.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

Because Access and WAN are so difficult to say in the same sentence, I wonder
who if anyone has actually tried it to any significant extent. Performance is
predictable, I'm not really sure about WAN reliability these days.

So, we need to ENCOURAGE David, better him than me, and hopefully he'll report
back!

<g>

I don't know what to tell you to do to optimize performance over the WAN, but
I'll give you my own experience. We have about 9MB of data shared among 5
users. I started the DB 3 years ago and had very little knowledge. It shows.
The DB is very far from perfect, but it is useful nonetheless. It is about
150 miles from here to the shared drive and back. Prior to our IT folks
getting the Citrix server stable (there was evidently a learning curve or
else low demand for the service, I don't know which) I could count on finding
a corrupt BE about every month or two. About two or three times a year it
couldn't be repaired and had to be restored from backup files which I try to
remember to make every day. When the network was running smoothly,
performance was slow but acceptable. When the network was marginal, I and my
users wanted to pull out our hair. On the whole, having the shared DB was
better than not having it by a pretty wide margin. Other than that, I only
have two pieces of advice:

1. Agitate for TS or Citrix

2. Make your backups like they vote in Chicago: early and often.

HTH

Mike

David Mueller wrote:
>First, I do know better but I'm doing it anyway.
>
>Second, without adding any technology (MS SQL, TS, ...) is there anything I
>can do to optimize MS Access for use over the WAN? If I can tweak one,
>single, solitary, obscure, hardly-ever-heard-of-and-maybe-not-even-published
>setting I'll feel better about the whole situation.
>
>Thanks,
>David

--
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo Possum

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

"Mikal via AccessMonster.com" <u16180@uwe> wrote:

>I don't know what to tell you to do to optimize performance over the WAN, but
>I'll give you my own experience. We have about 9MB of data shared among 5
>users. I started the DB 3 years ago and had very little knowledge. It shows.
>The DB is very far from perfect, but it is useful nonetheless. It is about
>150 miles from here to the shared drive and back. Prior to our IT folks
>getting the Citrix server stable (there was evidently a learning curve or
>else low demand for the service, I don't know which) I could count on finding
>a corrupt BE about every month or two. About two or three times a year it
>couldn't be repaired and had to be restored from backup files which I try to
>remember to make every day. When the network was running smoothly,
>performance was slow but acceptable. When the network was marginal, I and my
>users wanted to pull out our hair. On the whole, having the shared DB was
>better than not having it by a pretty wide margin. Other than that, I only
>have two pieces of advice:
>
>1. Agitate for TS or Citrix

>2. Make your backups like they vote in Chicago: early and often.

Excellent posting. Thanks for that. But you missed one detail.

I thought Chicago also voted from cemeteries?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

>Excellent posting. Thanks for that. But you missed one detail.
>
>I thought Chicago also voted from cemeteries?
>
>Tony

Thank you for the compliment. Not being from Chicago, I have only heard the
rumors. I am, however from Louisiana and would like to offer this paraphrase
from former governor Earl K. Long: Do you mean to say you would
disenfranchise the dead? You would actually deny a person's God-given right
to vote just because some P***ant doctor scratched his name on a piece of
paper?!?

Mike

--
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo Possum

Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-setupconfig/200607/1