xp peers to peer networks

[simcon]

I will be running an MSAccess 2003 application split into front end and back
end on an xp peer to peer network.
If the 'server' computer which holds the 'shared data ' is XP Pro system how
many clients can I link to it. Is it a lesser number if I run XP Home on the
server.
If I split the data on the 'server' into more than one mdb file does that
have an implication on the number of clients.
thank you ....

 

[boblarson]

You should be fine if you run it as a split database. It should be a split
frontend/backend with each computer having the frontend on their computer.

How many are you trying to use with this? Access technically can handle up
to 255 users, but the performance can degrade after only a few, depending on
how the database is designed.
--
Bob Larson
Access World Forums Super Moderator
Utter Access VIP
Tutorials at http://www.btabdevelopment.com
If my post was helpful to you, please rate the post.
__________________________________

 

[simcon]

thanks Bob it will be about 9 clients. I was concerned about the number of
'connections' between the clients and the 'server' with regard to
restrictions rather than the number of users.
thank you for answering so quickly.

 

[John W. Vinson]

If the 'server' computer which holds the 'shared data ' is XP Pro system how
many clients can I link to it. Is it a lesser number if I run XP Home on the
server.

An Access .mdb file backend is really a very different programming environment
than a true client/server system. The computer on which it resides is acting
*ONLY* as a file server - it's not acting as a database server, as it would be
if you had the data in SQL/Server. In fact, it's not even necessary to have
Access installed on the backend - for that matter you don't even need a
Windows operating system! You can be storing your backend on a Unix file
server if you wish.

The only real limits are the 255 concurrent user limitation on Access, and the
much more variable performance or user-conflict limits which depend on how
your database is constructed.

John W. Vinson [MVP]

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

xp home and pro only allow a maximum of ten connections to that file.

I'm guessing, but if you ran a free edition of SQL server in even on Expedia
home, I suspect you get around this limitation

(hopefully someone can chime and clarify this issue).

Thus a standard windows (home, or pro) is limited to ten connections, if you
need more connections then you have to upgrade to a server edition of
windows....

 

[simcon]

Albert you have confirmed worries in fact I think it is only 5 connections
with XP Home.

 

[david]

*ONLY* as a file server - it's not acting as a database server

You know that could be a little confusing too... somebody might
get the (false) impression that the file server was serving files?

We know that the file server is using the OS database primitives
to serve physical records, which are not files. Simplifying that
it's not leads to this kind of error:

The only real limits are the 255 concurrent user limitation on

It's a client server database environment. The first limit is the
number of connections the server will accept. Which is quite
small (10?) when you are using a Workstation as the server.

my 2c

(david)

 

[simcon]

Stefan has reminded me that the 10 user restriction relates to 'shares'
whereas SQL is a service so the restriction is not applicable in this cae.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

In addition to what the others have mentioned as a 10 user limit on XP, let
me remind you that you MUST split the database. Only the data tables should
be on the "server". Each workstation should have its own copy of the
front-end.

 

[simcon]

thank you Arvin we will certainly split the database.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Albert you have confirmed worries in fact I think it is only 5
connections with XP Home.

No one should be using XP Home for any purpose whatsoever. It is a
piece of trash that nobody should be using. And if you're using it
in a peer-to-peer network, make sure it's *not* the server
workstation, as you don't have anything but "Simple File Sharing,"
which prohibits setting up proper ACLs for your shares.