Access Database Cloud Site

[Mike Krailo]

Well Pat, we just have to agree to disagree. Parler was clearly a business that was in direct competition with the so called woke twitter company and others that seen them as a threat. So unless you have that sort of business, then you have little to worry about. I don't think what AWS did should be legal to do to any company for any reason. What right do they have to just pull the plug on a business they don't like or agree with?

Every business should have a disaster plan, the most important part being to be able to remove your data quickly from the servers in question and I think that can be done in this case very quickly. Testing out parts of your disaster recovery plan on a reguIar basis and considering the consequences is a responsibility that rests solely with the business owner and partners. In the end, it mostly depends on what the business needs are and how critical the whole remote access is to everything. I believe that the Access Database Cloud site provides a viable solution to meet the remote needs of a business that requires it. At the very least, it is an option that they now have.

 

[Pat Hartman]

How about the companies that make cupcakes that "offend" people.

I didn't say to not use the service. It is about time that MS got the message and offered a viable solution. It is still pricy for many small businesses. It would be better if the service were less expensive or got less expensive once you added more seats. It is just that the Woke mob can turn on anyone at any time. They even eat their own for the slightest deviation from the policy line.

So, don't bother to warn your customers.

 

[Mike Krailo]

It's an interesting concept to be sure depending on ease of migration, but the costs are still pretty significant for the typical Access user (imo).

Good lord man, this isn't for the typical access user. It is for a business that needs remote access to their Access database and doesn't want to have the hassle of using their own server. Every business does not have the same exact needs. Your business may need more up to the second synchronization needs and another may only need that once a week. Another business might be smaller and only have five persons that even touch the database at all. Each business has to weigh the pro's and con's of using such a service. Obviously per seat means higher costs for more seats.

If you are even remotely interested in something like this, it would be much more beneficial to talk to Joe directly about exact cost breakdowns for different situations and see if it makes sense instead of relying on your napkin. Those that have their own server in house and even just use the system on the local network had better have some offsite backups. In the cloud, that issue is taken care of for you.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This article has brought out that it is just about a new hosting center. For the U.S. Navy I was a system admin at Navy Enterprise Data Center New Orleans (NEDC NO) which used exactly the same logic and concepts.

Data centers work because for a single machine, a dedicated person (the admin) is busy maybe 25-50% of the time with actual system admin work and spends the rest of the work day trying to look busy OR wears another "hat" in the same office. I wore at least two most of the time, and sometimes three. So the Data Center concept is that one admin can cover multiple projects.

We had up to 30 admins at a time for a load that ramped up to 80 customer-clients and 1500 individual systems. Some of them were one-man shops with systems that were only used sparingly during the week and got hit hard on the weekend. Others were week-day shops. We kept the staff hopping but kept the client machines running. And we had a team concept such that if the primary admin for project A was busy, at least four more people would be listed as knowing something about the project's machines. It was a matter of "economy of scale."

The use of virtual machine systems (VMWare was most common) allowed us to dedicate a VM that was maybe 1/8th of the compute power of the VM Server rather than a whole server to a given project. So one "hardware footprint" would fully serve 8 projects. (Or more.) Therefore, the thing that @Mike Krailo is discussing is perfectly common. In fact, what do you think WE are on when using this forum? Hint: It probably isn't a stand-alone server.

 

[GPGeorge]

Good lord man, this isn't for the typical access user. It is for a business that needs remote access to their Access database and doesn't want to have the hassle of using their own server. Every business does not have the same exact needs. Your business may need more up to the second synchronization needs and another may only need that once a week. Another business might be smaller and only have five persons that even touch the database at all. Each business has to weigh the pro's and con's of using such a service. Obviously per seat means higher costs for more seats.

If you are even remotely interested in something like this, it would be much more beneficial to talk to Joe directly about exact cost breakdowns for different situations and see if it makes sense instead of relying on your napkin. Those that have their own server in house and even just use the system on the local network had better have some offsite backups. In the cloud, that issue is taken care of for you.

I wonder how this compares to using Azure or AWS?

 

[Mike Krailo]

I wonder how this compares to using Azure or AWS?

That is a good question. I have another developer friend that is helping a client out with the Azure route right now and according to him, it is a pain to setup compared to what he seen in the ADC demo, but he did not divulge all the costs involved. The cost comparison is going to have to be laid out so we can make informed decisions which way to go. If anyone else has some experience with Azure costs, that would be good info to put here for comparison purposes.

 

[jaikaoliver]

Greatly interested in this but what if I'm used to Access 2013
I'm following closely the discussion, this is my are of need for sure.

 

[sonic8]

Greatly interested in this but what if I'm used to Access 2013

That's a non-issue. You will hardly notice a difference between Access 2013 and the newer versions.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Greatly interested in this but what if I'm used to Access 2013
I'm following closely the discussion, this is my are of need for sure.

The only issue for sites like this is (a) whether they have a suitable environment available and (b) whether they would accept YOUR copy of Access 2013 to run on their servers. Plus, of course, cost factors for YOUR business and clients.

Don't forget that data center sites take on certain responsibilities. If you have shared an older version of Access, at least in theory you need enough licensed copies to cover your users. The data center doesn't DARE offer a service that would violate Microsoft licensing rules and requirements. That would be a big lawsuit, 'cause MS isn't known for generosity when it comes to software licensing. That scenario - "generous software licensing" - almost falls under the dictionary definition of "oxymoron."

 

[Mike Krailo]

Well I hope no one is considering breaking any licensing agreement's, it's very easy to upgrade or change your current licensing to be compliant with all the requirements. Don't make that a stumbling block.

 

[jaikaoliver]

The only issue for sites like this is (a) whether they have a suitable environment available and (b) whether they would accept YOUR copy of Access 2013 to run on their servers. Plus, of course, cost factors for YOUR business and clients.

Don't forget that data center sites take on certain responsibilities. If you have shared an older version of Access, at least in theory you need enough licensed copies to cover your users. The data center doesn't DARE offer a service that would violate Microsoft licensing rules and requirements. That would be a big lawsuit, 'cause MS isn't known for generosity when it comes to software licensing. That scenario - "generous software licensing" - almost falls under the dictionary definition of "oxymoron."

Happened to be in a live session with

Access Database Cloud Site​

Virtual Cloud Desktops for Access Databases - Use your Access database online in the cloud from anywhere!

Use Microsoft Access databases on cloud desktops from anywhere, using any device. Your database can be used "as-is" on cloud desktops. Setup is simple, no pressure demos, backups included, fully managed service.

www.accessdatabasecloud.com

Its a promising venture.....can really help most access developers host their Databases online for easy accessibility globally

 

[Joe.Richardson]

I'm very sceptical if their service is in line with Microsoft RDP licensing terms.
I can't say who would be legally responsible for licensing infringements; they offering a service that allows violation of the licensing terms or you actually using a service in violation of the licensing terms. - Probably both.
IANAL and might be completely wrong here, but this aspect should be considered.

I'm very sceptical if their service is in line with Microsoft RDP licensing terms.
I can't say who would be legally responsible for licensing infringements; they offering a service that allows violation of the licensing terms or you actually using a service in violation of the licensing terms. - Probably both.
IANAL and might be completely wrong here, but this aspect should be considered.

Windows licensing is taken care of by our data center provider OVH. All other licenses for software installed on the cloud desktops are the responsibility of the customer. We do not supply licensing for 365, Adobe, or any other software. That is the sole responsibility of the end customer.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

Just an update on the demo our group had (about four of us), Joe Richardson pretty much answered all of our questions and it looks like this is going to be a game changer going forward. There is no licensing problem as far as I can tell because Microsoft can upgrade your current subscriptions or offer you a new one to handle your needs. The most popular option is Microsoft Office 365 Business for Enterprise ($12/mo per user). These are now your products that are installed onto the cloud machine (Windows Server 2022).

• The client can run whatever apps they want on it (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, etc...)
• Easily printout reports to your local printer
• Copy and paste TEXT (not files) from the web browser remote session to your local desktop seamlessly
• Drag and drop files to or from the cloud (Web Browser Only).
• Remember, each user has the 5 installs that go onto their devices: Laptop, Desktop, Mobile, Desktop2, CloudServer, etc...
• Setup lot's of security features including white list of machines allowed to connect to the server.
• They all login to the same server in the cloud either through the browser or a special RDP connection.
• Use your same split database or multiple databases with frontends on each users desktop
• No more database corruption issues due to client side faulty hardware that is hard to track down.
• The developer could simply share one of the existing accounts that the client has during development or when needed.
• The client does not have to maintain a local server anymore unless they really want to.
• The files are backed up automatically for 7 days in separate physical locations (data centers)
• For longer term backups, the admin can easily download the all backend files weekly, monthly, quarterly as desired.

The entire thing runs on a shoebox sized, state of the art piece of hardware in one of 10 datacenters around the world. It is well worth the monthly fees if your clients system has the requirement to be available remotely. This is a better option than Azure as it easier to setup (much less headaches). If you have any more questions, I suggest you schedule a demo with joe and see for yourself.

A couple of clarifications...
The majority of our customers choose to use Microsoft 365 Apps for Enterprise ($12/mo per user) on their cloud desktops. Microsoft only allows the following 365 plans to be used on shared cloud computers: A) 365 Apps for Enterprise, B) 365 Business Professional, C) 365 E3, or D) 365 E5 and of course, Access Runtime can be installed if that's all they need. Customers can use any long-term backup software they choose. iDrive backup is a good option.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

Edit: It looks like @The_Doc_Man beat me to it.
As he said (he's the expert by far, not me), from what I've read the technical limitations weren't establishing a fault-tolerant SMB connection but that you would die from boredom or old age trying to use it on anything approaching a production environment.

I am curious as to why Microsoft 365 Business Enterprise is required as opposed to Microsoft 365 Standard (which includes Outlook/Exchange Server/OneDrive/etc i.e. the underlying networking backbone) and the free access runtime distributable.

Microsoft only allows the following 365 plans to be used on shared cloud computers: A) 365 Apps for Enterprise, B) 365 Business Professional, C) 365 E3, or D) 365 E5 and of course, Access Runtime can be installed if that's all they need.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

Before committing to something like this, remember what AWS did to Parlar. It wasn't that they shut down the website with 24 hours notice forcing them to find a new host. It was that Parlar was renting their own "server" and essentially running their business on it. And so AWS turned off the SERVER preventing Parlar from accessing any of their files and other software AND Parlar was given 24 hours to move it or lose it. YOU try to move an entire server in under 24 hours. The clock is ticking and you don't have a new home yet.

Check the fine print on ANY cloud contract and make sure that if they can cancel you, that they must give you sufficient time to find another provider. And in the case where you are committing to use their software like SalesForce or Quicken, make sure you understand IF and HOW you would ever get your data back should you find a product you like better and want to move. Having a printout really won't help you in a conversion situation.

That said, what could go wrong? Sounds like this is some kind of group thing so all your employees need to be part of the same group if you want to share Access. Can the service run SQL Server or is it just a RDP server?

I looked into this a few years ago and the hosting company wanted $40 per month per seat PLUS whatever O365 subscription you wanted. Since this is an all or nothing proposition for a small company, it was too pricy.

What did they quote as a price? Does the price go down as the number of users goes up? What is the smallest group they will take?

Customers always own their data. Customers can install any 3rd party online backup system they like and keep backups stored on that other platform like iDrive backups, carbonite, dropbox, box, onedrive, etc. They can easily download their databases also. Nothing to worry about here.

Each of our customers has their own private dedicated cloud server. All users in that company are able to share folders and files as allowed by their admins. Yes, it is a group thing.

Yes, we have customers who have installed SQL Server on their cloud servers and use it for their Access backends.

There is a price calculator on our pricing page. We charge a flat rate per user. The smallest customer or number of users we will take is ONE.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

This is not for me, it is for any of our clients. If they need remote access to their database then this looks like a viable solution as far as I can tell. I highly recommend asking Joe himself all the questions that you may have. Parler is not anything like Access. That was an actual website with twitter like functionality. The only thing you lose if the service goes away in the Access scenario is your ability to do so remotely. It is trivial to download your data and backend on a regular basis and whenever you want. I don't think there is nothing to fear there. Now if you are doing a full blown web service type of thing, that is whole different ball of wax.

Yes the service can host your SQL Server application on that same shoebox and be used as your backend. I forgot to mention that earlier.


The pricing is listed on their website, you can check for yourself. I don't believe it is priced nearly as high as what you looked at previously. This seems reasonable to me. Please contact Joe Richardson for the exact details of what is possible depending on your needs. The O365 subscription can be upgraded from whatever they have now to the enterprise grade model as I stated earlier. It's not that bad.

From the very first post: For 5 users it's about $1.55 per day per user, so $7.75 per day

Keep in mind that we do not supply, sell or lease any 365 licenses. Customers have to bring their own 365 licenses. The same is true for any other software they install on the cloud desktops.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Thanks Joe. I signed up for a demo next week. See you then

 

[Joe.Richardson]

Which for the mathematically disinclined is $46.50/month/user

The nice thing about this service is that it doesn't seem to have a lower limit. The bad thing about this service is that unless you already know how to implement a two part syncing back end (with it's own pros/cons/issues) then ALL of your users have to be subscribed to this, not just the ones that need remote access. That's based on their description that says the primary backend is located on the cloud server.

For example, depending on what would make sense for us, we would only need 13 users to have remote access. Right now we would have 19 users and in the future a couple more here at the shop that wouldn't need remote access. So, we would need to pay an extra $240 - $320/month for unneeded remote capabilities.

A quick google shows one company selling virtual (cloud) servers starting at $5/month. That may even be sufficient for our limited needs but a reasonable setup seems to start at $20/month (2 CPU, 4GB Ram, 80GB storage, 4TB bandwidth). So, you are paying for the ease of deployment/maintenance of a cloud server system. So, the question becomes, are there services out there that can manage an SQL setup for you if you (me) are not capable or able to manage the database ourselves. I'm not sure if our contracted IT company would manage a virtual server for us or how much they would charge to do so.

A quick back of napkin analysis....Our 20 user setup would be $828/month. Buying a server through our 3rd party IT company we already contract with would be roughly $12K. Their server maintenance is roughly $50/month if I recall. So, break even vs. this service is about 16 months assuming they can manage the SQL part of it too. The other way is paying for our own cloud server at $20/month. Now, how much would our IT company charge us to maintain it for us. I have a hard time believing they would charge us $800/month.

It's an interesting concept to be sure depending on ease of migration, but the costs are still pretty significant for the typical Access user (imo).

Our minimum customer size is ONE user.

Yes, ALL of our customers move their databases online. All users, whether at home or in the office, use the database online. Giving ALL their Access users the ability to work from home or anywhere outside the office is very important to them now - especially since Covid. Although some will come into the office every day, things happen which can force everyone to work remotely.... pandemics, hurricanes, tornados, fires, theft, etc... Customers love the flexibility.

The typical Access user costs about the same as he pays for a cell phone plan per month - but with us, he gets a cloud PC in a browser.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

This article has brought out that it is just about a new hosting center. For the U.S. Navy I was a system admin at Navy Enterprise Data Center New Orleans (NEDC NO) which used exactly the same logic and concepts.

Data centers work because for a single machine, a dedicated person (the admin) is busy maybe 25-50% of the time with actual system admin work and spends the rest of the work day trying to look busy OR wears another "hat" in the same office. I wore at least two most of the time, and sometimes three. So the Data Center concept is that one admin can cover multiple projects.

We had up to 30 admins at a time for a load that ramped up to 80 customer-clients and 1500 individual systems. Some of them were one-man shops with systems that were only used sparingly during the week and got hit hard on the weekend. Others were week-day shops. We kept the staff hopping but kept the client machines running. And we had a team concept such that if the primary admin for project A was busy, at least four more people would be listed as knowing something about the project's machines. It was a matter of "economy of scale."

The use of virtual machine systems (VMWare was most common) allowed us to dedicate a VM that was maybe 1/8th of the compute power of the VM Server rather than a whole server to a given project. So one "hardware footprint" would fully serve 8 projects. (Or more.) Therefore, the thing that @Mike Krailo is discussing is perfectly common. In fact, what do you think WE are on when using this forum? Hint: It probably isn't a stand-alone server.

We use OVH datacenters. Today they are highly automated.

 

[Joe.Richardson]

I wonder how this compares to using Azure or AWS?

They are both over-complicated. We make it extremely simple for our customers, plus the performance is amazing.