Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!
  1.   Become a Supporter    ::   Make a Contribution   
    Target (Recurring Monthly): $200 :: Achieved: $98

C: Drive

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Howard, Jul 28, 2006.

Tags:
  1. Howard

    Howard
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows XP from
    Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT installer says we
    can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is our personal drive on the
    network, rather than the C: drive. I thought the idea of splitting the
    database was that only the data on the back-end would run over the network
    (T: drive, our share drive). Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C: drive?

    Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I don't want
    those problems again.

    Thanks,
    --
    Howard
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Allen Browne

    Allen Browne
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Re: Drive

    If you can use the local hard disk it will reduce the amount of network
    traffic.

    If you cannot, you can get away with your own personal space on a network
    drive. Since each user has a completely difference mdb file they are
    opening, you still have the isolation you need.

    --
    Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
    Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
    Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

    "Howard" <DFM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:F891261E-00CD-4428-A3EB-68F98B9614E1@microsoft.com...
    > Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows XP
    > from
    > Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT installer says
    > we
    > can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is our personal drive on the
    > network, rather than the C: drive. I thought the idea of splitting the
    > database was that only the data on the back-end would run over the network
    > (T: drive, our share drive). Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C:
    > drive?
    >
    > Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I don't
    > want
    > those problems again.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > --
    > Howard
     
  4. Dirk Goldgar

    Dirk Goldgar
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Re: Drive

    "Howard" <DFM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:F891261E-00CD-4428-A3EB-68F98B9614E1@microsoft.com
    > Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows
    > XP from Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT
    > installer says we can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is
    > our personal drive on the network, rather than the C: drive. I
    > thought the idea of splitting the database was that only the data on
    > the back-end would run over the network (T: drive, our share drive).
    > Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C: drive?
    >
    > Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I
    > don't want those problems again.


    Having the front-end on the U: drive (personal, but on network) would
    solve your lock-out problems, but will still be less efficient and
    somewhat corruption-prone (because design elements have to be sent
    across the network). At least your corruptions of the front-end would
    only affect you, and it could easily be restored from a master copy.

    I recommend putting the front-end on a local drive, such as the C:
    drive.

    --
    Dirk Goldgar, MS Access MVP
    www.datagnostics.com

    (please reply to the newsgroup)
     
  5. Howard

    Howard
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Re: Drive

    Thanks to both of you for your replies.
    --
    Howard


    "Dirk Goldgar" wrote:

    > "Howard" <DFM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:F891261E-00CD-4428-A3EB-68F98B9614E1@microsoft.com
    > > Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows
    > > XP from Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT
    > > installer says we can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is
    > > our personal drive on the network, rather than the C: drive. I
    > > thought the idea of splitting the database was that only the data on
    > > the back-end would run over the network (T: drive, our share drive).
    > > Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C: drive?
    > >
    > > Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I
    > > don't want those problems again.

    >
    > Having the front-end on the U: drive (personal, but on network) would
    > solve your lock-out problems, but will still be less efficient and
    > somewhat corruption-prone (because design elements have to be sent
    > across the network). At least your corruptions of the front-end would
    > only affect you, and it could easily be restored from a master copy.
    >
    > I recommend putting the front-end on a local drive, such as the C:
    > drive.
    >
    > --
    > Dirk Goldgar, MS Access MVP
    > www.datagnostics.com
    >
    > (please reply to the newsgroup)
    >
    >
    >
     
  6. Sarah Schreffler

    Sarah Schreffler
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Howard wrote:
    > Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows XP from
    > Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT installer says we
    > can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is our personal drive on the
    > network, rather than the C: drive. I thought the idea of splitting the
    > database was that only the data on the back-end would run over the network
    > (T: drive, our share drive). Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C: drive?
    >
    > Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I don't want
    > those problems again.


    Sarah:
    Talk to your IT department about why they want it on the U: drive -- it
    is likely it has to do with being able to backup the database. They
    can not be sure that the C: drive is backed up, but the U: drive they
    can.
     
  7. SusanV

    SusanV
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    In which case, assure them that you will push a copy of the frontend (and if
    distributing an MDE, also the uncompiled frontend dev mdb) to a location of
    their choosing for backup purposes.

    ;-)

    SusanV

    "Sarah Schreffler" <sarah.schreffler@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1149869087.174879.300610@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Howard wrote:
    >> Our database is split front-end/back-end. We're migrating to Windows XP
    >> from
    >> Windows 2000, although we're keeping Access 2000. The IT installer says
    >> we
    >> can have the front-end on the U: drive, which is our personal drive on
    >> the
    >> network, rather than the C: drive. I thought the idea of splitting the
    >> database was that only the data on the back-end would run over the
    >> network
    >> (T: drive, our share drive). Shouldn't the front-end be on the users C:
    >> drive?
    >>
    >> Prior to splitting the database, we had lock-up problems, etc. I don't
    >> want
    >> those problems again.

    >
    > Sarah:
    > Talk to your IT department about why they want it on the U: drive -- it
    > is likely it has to do with being able to backup the database. They
    > can not be sure that the C: drive is backed up, but the U: drive they
    > can.
    >
     
  8. Dirk Goldgar

    Dirk Goldgar
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    "Sarah Schreffler" <sarah.schreffler@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1149869087.174879.300610@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
    >
    > Talk to your IT department about why they want it on the U: drive --
    > it is likely it has to do with being able to backup the database.
    > They can not be sure that the C: drive is backed up, but the U: drive
    > they can.


    Good point, but in most split applications the front-end contains
    nothing that really needs to be preserved, so long as the master copy
    can readily be retrieved and reinstalled. It's different if
    user-specific data, or user-designed, personal queries, are stored in
    the front-end.


    --
    Dirk Goldgar, MS Access MVP
    www.datagnostics.com

    (please reply to the newsgroup)
     
Since you're here... we have a small favor to ask...

More people are visiting & reading SPN than ever but far fewer are paying to sustain it. Advertising revenues across the online media have fallen fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. Donating to SPN's is vote for free speech, for diversity of opinions, for the right of the people to stand up to religious bigotry. Without any affiliation to any organization, this constant struggle takes a lot of hard work to sustain as we entirely depend on the contributions of our esteemed writers/readers. We do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too... Fund our efforts and together we can keep the world informed about the real Sikh Sikhi Sikhism. If everyone who writes or reads our content, who likes it, helps us to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Every Contribution Matters, Contribute Generously!

    Become a Supporter      ::     Make a Contribution     



Share This Page