Welcome to SPN

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

Sign Up Now!

FE/BE vs FULL DATABASE ON SERVER

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

  1. Fabio

    Fabio
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hello There,

    I read many threads about the benefits of splitting a MDB into FE/BE. One of
    the benefits was that the LAN just for actual data, and not loading forms for
    example, since the FE is in the user's machine. So I did it. But instead of
    improving, it made the performance worse.
    Then I searched for threads on how to improve the performance in a FE/BE
    database and I have been taken to the following website
    http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm where I found a
    very useful tip on how to make a persistent connection. So I did it as well,
    and guess what, the performance hasn't improved a bit. It is still twice
    slower than the whole database being opened from the server.
    So I felt a bit disappointed on not being able to accomplish such a task.
    Is there anything I am doing wrong? What coud it be the reason for the
    performance being so bad?

    I'll appreciate any help.
    --
    Thanks
    Fabio
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Jerry Whittle

    Jerry Whittle
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    How many concurrent users? If you have only one or two users, then an unsplit
    database might seem faster. However, once you get, say, five or more
    concurrent users, a split database, with each users having a local copy of
    the FE, is going to be much faster than an unsplit database having the same
    number of users.

    Also speed isn't the only, maybe even the best, reason to split a database.
    Rather it's to prevent data loss and other corruption issues. A BE with just
    tables is very robust, whereas the FE with forms and reports can corrupt. In
    that case you just install a new FE. If the database is not split, then the
    entire thing, including data, can be trashed.
    --
    Jerry Whittle
    Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


    "Fabio" wrote:

    > Hello There,
    >
    > I read many threads about the benefits of splitting a MDB into FE/BE. One of
    > the benefits was that the LAN just for actual data, and not loading forms for
    > example, since the FE is in the user's machine. So I did it. But instead of
    > improving, it made the performance worse.
    > Then I searched for threads on how to improve the performance in a FE/BE
    > database and I have been taken to the following website
    > http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm where I found a
    > very useful tip on how to make a persistent connection. So I did it as well,
    > and guess what, the performance hasn't improved a bit. It is still twice
    > slower than the whole database being opened from the server.
    > So I felt a bit disappointed on not being able to accomplish such a task.
    > Is there anything I am doing wrong? What coud it be the reason for the
    > performance being so bad?
    >
    > I'll appreciate any help.
    > --
    > Thanks
    > Fabio
     
  4. Tony Toews

    Tony Toews
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Fabio <Fabio@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

    >I read many threads about the benefits of splitting a MDB into FE/BE. One of
    >the benefits was that the LAN just for actual data, and not loading forms for
    >example, since the FE is in the user's machine. So I did it. But instead of
    >improving, it made the performance worse.
    >Then I searched for threads on how to improve the performance in a FE/BE
    >database and I have been taken to the following website
    >http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm where I found a
    >very useful tip on how to make a persistent connection. So I did it as well,
    >and guess what, the performance hasn't improved a bit. It is still twice
    >slower than the whole database being opened from the server.
    >So I felt a bit disappointed on not being able to accomplish such a task.
    >Is there anything I am doing wrong? What coud it be the reason for the
    >performance being so bad?


    I noticed the same thing in A97. I don't know that there's a lot that
    can be done other then going through the other performance tips on my
    website.

    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
     

Share This Page