C: Drive

[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,

 

[Allen Browne]

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.

 

[Dirk Goldgar]

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.

 

[Guest]

Thanks to both of you for your replies.

 

[Sarah Schreffler]

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.

 

[SusanV]

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

 

[Dirk Goldgar]

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.