One or Two Backend DBs For Two Front End DBs?

[JamesJoey]

Currently I have 2 front end dbs and one backend.

Should I continue having 1 backend for both front ends or should I split the backend into 2, one for each frontend?

James

 

[plog]

Keep the one backend

 

[James Deckert]

I'm with plog. Unless there is a reason to have 2 BE's. Don't just do it because there are two FE's. Easier maintenance. Don't need to compare and update or sync data from 2 BE's.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The ONLY reason I would ever have multiple BE files would be if you reached the 2 GB mark and had to grow more (and for some obscure reason could not upgrade to SQL Server or ORACLE or something else that doesn't have the 2 Gb limit). I can imagine that you could have some oddball security requirement for this, perhaps, but it would have to be so contrived a case as to not be practical for most of us.

Further, judicious archiving, deletion of archived records, and file compact/repair operations would at least push back the time at which you would need to do a two-for-one BE split.

 

[JamesJoey]

Got it.
I'll keep the one.

Thanks,
James

 

[Galaxiom]

Moreover, I would probably have one Front End that could be configured for the two purposes.