Multi user or NAS question (1 Viewer)

[kingdoz]

Hi all,
Recently we have had a second user, so I put the database as a whole on a mapped drive on sbs 2011. Of course the first power cut crash and the database got corrupted so yes, splitting FO and BE now. I just kept together for ease of changes and edits but I will keep it split from now on as learned my lesson. I have Only 2 users and Data is around 50mb so not a big deal to give seperate front ends.

My main questions is, would a basic cheap NAS for around £200 with one enclosed and a 512gb ssd drive be suitable to host the backend access database or is it best to leave on the old sbs server? Or perhaps a seperate drive attached to the usb of the server? Unfortunately our server is so old it can sometimes run real slow, it’s only still in use as it does the dns and for Remote Desktop access, so I would prefer to run the back end database on a newer device with faster drive perhaps on ssd drive on a Nas of some sort as we have a very fast cat 7 network here?
many thanks

 

[Minty]

Provided you NAS box is configured as a "dumb" file server it should work fine.
Just avoid using it's advanced "helpful file sharing" apps if it has any inbuilt, as they can cause issues.

More NAS related discussions here

Change to NAS server problems (faster database)

Hi, I have quite big database in MS Access and has some problems. Introdution: I have 7 databases backend (.accdb) located in shared folder in Windows Server 2012. Each database is about 80-200MB. From this databases i created one frontend. Some tables has about 1 500 000 records. It's problem...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The U.S. Navy provided several NAS drives to the office where I worked. As long as the NAS drives are configured to be indistinguishable from mapped network drives, you are good. If they are configured to act like Cloud drives, don't go there. The answer is NO - because of the protocols used by "vanilla" network drives vs. Cloud drives. They ARE different.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I just kept together for ease of changes and edits

Not really easier to change anything that isn't trivial when your app isn't split.

 

[amorosik]

Hi all,
Recently we have had a second user, so I put the database as a whole on a mapped drive on sbs 2011. Of course the first power cut crash and the database got corrupted so yes, splitting FO and BE now. I just kept together for ease of changes and edits but I will keep it split from now on as learned my lesson. I have Only 2 users and Data is around 50mb so not a big deal to give seperate front ends.

My main questions is, would a basic cheap NAS for around £200 with one enclosed and a 512gb ssd drive be suitable to host the backend access database or is it best to leave on the old sbs server? Or perhaps a seperate drive attached to the usb of the server? Unfortunately our server is so old it can sometimes run real slow, it’s only still in use as it does the dns and for Remote Desktop access, so I would prefer to run the back end database on a newer device with faster drive perhaps on ssd drive on a Nas of some sort as we have a very fast cat 7 network here?
many thanks

With DS220+ and a few megabyte of additional ram, you can installa virtual machine (also Windows) on a nas
If you install a Windows operating system on voirtual machine, you have a machine that can maintain your db
But the above is not the solution to your problem
THE way is to change from file-share to client-server system, then user interface on workstation and a db server on a separate system in lan (Microsoft Sql Server, Oracle, Ibm Db2, MySql, Postgresql, ecc..)

 

[DickyP]

Not really easier to change anything that isn't trivial when your app isn't split.

Actually this is a good thing! It forces you to have a proper documented, tested release process with proper change control in place.

separate system in lan (Microsoft Sql Server, Oracle, Ibm Db2, MySql, Postgresql, ecc..)

From the sound of Kingdoz's problem MySQL is probably the best bet unless his organization has other systems in use. It is probably the simplest, cheapest and easiest route: however, this advice is based on incomplete information and may be wrong/irrelevant/inappropriate. I installed and run it on my NAS and it was simplicity itself.