Connect to SQL Server over the internet

[Jose Perdigao]

Hi,

Computer A is where is installed SQL server 2000 and the BE. Computer B, I
have the FE (ADP in access 2003). The both computers are connected the
internet.



So, how can I connect to SQL Server over the internet? I mean, I want
connect my FE Computer B) to BE (computer A).



I listen something, we can do this connection trough IP address, but I don't
have idea how can I do.



Any Ideas?

Thanks,

José Perdigão

 

[Sylvain Lafontaine]

You shouldn't have any problem if there are no blocking firewall. However,
many hosting services will protect their SQL-Server behind a firewall (in
this case, there are no solution), so I suspect that this might be your
problem.

 

[Jose Perdigao]

I don't have this problem because I'm testing with my computers (computer A
& B). I can remove the firewall.
I'm working with SQL Server 2000 and MS Access 2003.
So, how can I do?
Thanks.

 

[Sylvain Lafontaine]

If you have removed the firewall (must be removed from both machines), then
you shouldn't have any problem connecting to the SQL-Server using the
connection dialog window that you will find on the main menu: File ->
Connection.

Select the server from the drop down list or other its name or its TCP/IP
number and give the proper login and password.

Of course, instead of removing the firewalls, you can also open them for the
port 1433; which is the port used by SQL-Server in its basic configuration.

 

[aaron.kempf]

yeah i've gotten this to work with ADP many times before.

I absolutely love this feature; i mean-=- try connecting to a 1gb mdb
file across the internet lol

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

Yes, with an mdb file you have to open the file access
port instead of the sql server port.

 

[aaron.kempf]

and if you're scanning a large table across the interent via mdb;
you're going to bring the whole table local (download 1gb over a tiny
connection) and then scan it locally.

if you scan a large sql server table for 20 rows; you'll only pass 20
rows back and forth.

what's faster passing 2billion rows or 20?

Sql Server is superior to MDB in every possible manner and anyone using
MDB for anything in the year 2006 should be fired on the spot.

-Aaron

 

[Robert Morley]

Sql Server is superior to MDB in every possible manner and anyone using

MDB for anything in the year 2006 should be fired on the spot.

Not that tired old argument again, Aaron. Give it a rest already! Some
people think differently than you do, just accept that. (Not to mention
that if I remember correctly, you, yourself, have admitted to starting on
Access and using it to learn SQL.)

 

[aaron.kempf]

can you connect to a mdb over the internet?

why don't you STFU and get a database that works

yes; i use Access every day; and i have used to every day for almost 10
years now.

but i'll be damned if i use MDB lol

it's for babies!!!

MS has released a free version of SQL Server ever since 1999. It's
laughable to think that i would use a babies' database like MDB

 

[aaron.kempf]

and the key point is that i used training wheels when i learned to ride
a bike.

you dumba$$es are still using training wheels.

Access Data Projects are the best product; the most important product
to ever come out of redmond.

wouldn't you rather use ADP for writing sprocs than anything else in
the world?
if you say no; then you haven't tried it yet

ADP writes sprocs and views and it has more functionality than
a) Query Analyzer
b) Enterprise Manager
c) SQL Server Management Studio

Access Data Projects are an awesome tool; and you too-- my idiot MDB
friend-- can crawl out of your db performance / reliability HOLE by
clinging to Access Data Projects.

 

[Robert Morley]

Who said I was using MDB's? I wouldn't be on this group if I weren't using
ADP's.

All I said was that they serve their purpose. Why, for example, would you
bother to run all the various SQL Services to maintain a small database with
only a few tables that only you need to use? Much faster and easier to
design a monolithic app as an MDB, much as that's frowned upon under most
circumstances.

And in truth, no, I wouldn't rather use ADP for writing SProcs...I'd rather
use the SQL Server tools. Despite your claims to the contrary, I find the
ADP tools (at least in A2002) to be somewhat limited for what I use SProcs
and Functions for.

And calling everyone here "dumba$$es" frankly just shows everyone "the real
you". Some people here know more than you do, others know less. A great
many of us are at about the same level, and simply don't share your tunnel
vision. To each his own opinions...why do you feel the need to go rampaging
at every turn, just to present a single point of view that you know damned
well not everybody shares?



Rob

 

[aaron.kempf]

a single record with a single user in MDB is a travesty; worse than the
starving / genocided happening in durfur.

we should have UN peacekeepers in here keeping these dorks from using
MDB; it's just a travesty unlike the world has ever seen.

MDB should be retired anyone still using it should be retired

using QA / EM / SSMS for writing sprocs?

YOU JUST DONT HAVE AS MUCH FUNCTIONALITY AS I DO WITH ADP.

Can you copy / paste a view in QA / EM / SSMS?

Can you copy / paste a sproc in QA / EM / SSMS?

Can you look at a subquery in design view in QA or EM?

ADP is superior to all other SQL Server tools; and it is definitely
superior to any silly MDB solution..

monolithic app?

in Visual Studio 2005; you can connect to a SQL Sever database in a
portable manner just like you can with MDB.
it is called a 'user instance'

so now that you've lost the portability claim; you have no possible
reason to use MDB for anything.

I dont have tunnel vision i am just outraged that you assholes are
pushing new users into MDB.
new users shouldn't be on MDB; they should be on ADP.

I know that my point of view is the right point of view; and i've spent
countless-- hundreds, thousands of hours supporting MDB.

I've spent countless hours running around changing queries in different
'front ends' (GAG whoever invented the concept of frontend and backend
in mdb should be shot--- it was a wonderful marketing maneuver-- but
you're pulling the wool over peoples' eyes).

aren't you guys tired of updating a simple query in 50 different copies
of the same MDB file?

sending out emails asking people to 'get out of access so that we can
deploy changes'

i mean-- MDB is just not acceptable; and anyone that uses it

DOESNT KNOW SQL SERVER WELL ENOUGH TO GET THE JOB DONE.