Changing from an Access DB

[sleepin]

When does it become necessary to change from an Acess db to something else?
As an example, a tutorial I found said:

"when your site becomes very popular and its requirements outgrow the
capabilities that Access offers."

Is this dependent of the total number of hits the site receives, the total
number of concurrent hits, or is it dependent on the total number of page
hits or the total number of concurrent page hits? Or is there some other
criteria? Thanks.

Sign me,

Confused

 

[sleepin]

Hi Jon,
Thanks for your reply but how can someone plan for when to change? Somehow
the decision has to be based on either the amount of data being requested,
the number of hits per page or site, or download time being experienced by
visitors. Can't this be quantified?

We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
fruit before you make a purchase.

 

[Crash Gordon]

We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| fruit before you make a purchase.

Yes, but fruit is tangible, data and the amount of data flow you will recieve on your site...is not.


| Hi Jon,
| Thanks for your reply but how can someone plan for when to change? Somehow
| the decision has to be based on either the amount of data being requested,
| the number of hits per page or site, or download time being experienced by
| visitors. Can't this be quantified?
|
| We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| fruit before you make a purchase.
|
|
| | > Hi,
| > It's probably most dependant on your budget, Access has one (and only one)
| > thing going for it - it's cheap. There's no definitive answer, even from
| > Microsoft themselves, as to how much traffic Access can take. You'd
| probably
| > have to make your own decision along the lines of is my site is generating
| > enough revenue to cover the extra cost of SQL Server and is it important
| to
| > me (or my client) to know that my site will stay up 24/7. If the answer to
| > both is yes it's probably time to upgrade.
| >
| > Jon
| > Microsoft MVP - FP
| >
| >
| > sleepin wrote:
| > > When does it become necessary to change from an Acess db to something
| > > else? As an example, a tutorial I found said:
| > >
| > > "when your site becomes very popular and its requirements outgrow the
| > > capabilities that Access offers."
| > >
| > > Is this dependent of the total number of hits the site receives, the
| > > total number of concurrent hits, or is it dependent on the total
| > > number of page hits or the total number of concurrent page hits? Or
| > > is there some other criteria? Thanks.
| > >
| > > Sign me,
| > >
| > > Confused
| >
| >
|
|

 

[sleepin]

Well, if the "amount of data flow" is an intangible, and that premise is
questionable in my mind, then a + or - could be applied to at least get an
estimate don't you think?
We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| fruit before you make a purchase.

Yes, but fruit is tangible, data and the amount of data flow you will
recieve on your site...is not.


| Hi Jon,
| Thanks for your reply but how can someone plan for when to change? Somehow
| the decision has to be based on either the amount of data being requested,
| the number of hits per page or site, or download time being experienced by
| visitors. Can't this be quantified?
|
| We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| fruit before you make a purchase.
|
|
| | > Hi,
| > It's probably most dependant on your budget, Access has one (and only
one)
| > thing going for it - it's cheap. There's no definitive answer, even from
| > Microsoft themselves, as to how much traffic Access can take. You'd
| probably
| > have to make your own decision along the lines of is my site is
generating
| > enough revenue to cover the extra cost of SQL Server and is it important
| to
| > me (or my client) to know that my site will stay up 24/7. If the answer
to
| > both is yes it's probably time to upgrade.
| >
| > Jon
| > Microsoft MVP - FP
| >
| >
| > sleepin wrote:
| > > When does it become necessary to change from an Acess db to something
| > > else? As an example, a tutorial I found said:
| > >
| > > "when your site becomes very popular and its requirements outgrow the
| > > capabilities that Access offers."
| > >
| > > Is this dependent of the total number of hits the site receives, the
| > > total number of concurrent hits, or is it dependent on the total
| > > number of page hits or the total number of concurrent page hits? Or
| > > is there some other criteria? Thanks.
| > >
| > > Sign me,
| > >
| > > Confused
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Steve Easton]

Have you checked your server logs??
How much traffic is the site getting??
Also, the amount of traffic a site can handle depends upon the capabilities
/ capacity of your hosting company and their servers.


--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

 

[Jon]

I hear you. Try searching the web or newsgroups to find the answer to the
question when should you upgrade from Access. You'll find answers ranging
from Access isnt even good for a personal site to Tom Rowe running 6000
users an hour (and presumably getting rich on Access.

It's going to come down to money - ask your host the cost to upgrade to SQL
Server and then ask if your site(s) can justify the cost. If you can justify
the expense SQL Server will prove itself worthwhile, the only reason to
stick with Access is because your site can't justify the cost of sql server.

Look at it this way - when should you upgrade your car? If your car isn't
fast enough/roomy enough/reliable enough for your business needs then of
course you have to upgrade now. If you car meets your needs now but business
is good, will get better over the next few months and you'd like a better
way to get from a to b then you'd be tempted to upgrade now anyway.

Whoever you ask there really isn't a "scientific" answer to this question.

Jon

 

[Crash Gordon]

maybe, but imo data is intangible...however:

how would we know what your demand will be...check your server logs. you will ultimately need to make a judgement based upon that and what you might expect.


| Well, if the "amount of data flow" is an intangible, and that premise is
| questionable in my mind, then a + or - could be applied to at least get an
| estimate don't you think?
| | We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| | fruit before you make a purchase.
|
| Yes, but fruit is tangible, data and the amount of data flow you will
| recieve on your site...is not.
|
|
| | | Hi Jon,
| | Thanks for your reply but how can someone plan for when to change? Somehow
| | the decision has to be based on either the amount of data being requested,
| | the number of hits per page or site, or download time being experienced by
| | visitors. Can't this be quantified?
| |
| | We're dealing with computers here and even a grocery store can weigh your
| | fruit before you make a purchase.
| |
| |
| | | | > Hi,
| | > It's probably most dependant on your budget, Access has one (and only
| one)
| | > thing going for it - it's cheap. There's no definitive answer, even from
| | > Microsoft themselves, as to how much traffic Access can take. You'd
| | probably
| | > have to make your own decision along the lines of is my site is
| generating
| | > enough revenue to cover the extra cost of SQL Server and is it important
| | to
| | > me (or my client) to know that my site will stay up 24/7. If the answer
| to
| | > both is yes it's probably time to upgrade.
| | >
| | > Jon
| | > Microsoft MVP - FP
| | >
| | >
| | > sleepin wrote:
| | > > When does it become necessary to change from an Acess db to something
| | > > else? As an example, a tutorial I found said:
| | > >
| | > > "when your site becomes very popular and its requirements outgrow the
| | > > capabilities that Access offers."
| | > >
| | > > Is this dependent of the total number of hits the site receives, the
| | > > total number of concurrent hits, or is it dependent on the total
| | > > number of page hits or the total number of concurrent page hits? Or
| | > > is there some other criteria? Thanks.
| | > >
| | > > Sign me,
| | > >
| | > > Confused
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
|

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

If you start receiving more than 6,000 to 10,000 visitor per hour. But ...
It really depends on the type of site, what your database is doing, is it
use to allow site visitors to post to it (write) or is just providing
content to the site (read) or is it doing both?

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Jon,

Actually it is one of my client's sites, and that was only for 1 week and
now traffic is back to normal, however it did prove that Access could handle
the demand.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.

 

[sleepin]

I didn't mean to sound glib. I really am confused but if the measurement of
data can't be quantified and the "spread" is so wide how does anyone make
the decision to move from Access to SQL Server or something else?

I haven't looked, but I'll bet the "cost-spread" for SQL Server is as great
as the spread for measuring the data. Most manufacturing plants have
bottlenecks and when one is reached, if the plant is still profitable, the
plant will add more or faster machinery/workers.

Thomas, when you say "If you start receiving more than 6,000 to 10,000
visitor per hour." Is that per page or per site? The uses for a db are vast
and would almost certainly include read/write and probably some
transactional mathematics.

Would a maximum number of visitors per/page, per/hour be the most exact
criteria or should the overall performance of the site be the measurement?
Finally, what about the inevitable learning curve that comes with switching
from Access to something else? I've heard that Access is the easiest to
learn and use. Will it be very difficult to switch?

Thanks everyone!

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Access can only manage 255 simultaneous connections, so the 256th connection
will cause your application to stop functioning.

The 6,000 to 10,000 visitors, is per hour per site.

Let say 255 connections per second, that give you 3600 connections per
minute or 216000 connection per hour. Now along with this, you have to
determine how long each connection will last, and a length of the connection
also depends on how you write your ASP code (open/closed your
tables/recordset as needed). and how the database is being used. I never
close the connection, which is open via the global.asa.

I have actually had 5 Googlebots simultaneous generate 500+ database queries
each per second, which did crash a site, but a small change in coding solve
the problem for the future.

Upsizing to MS SQL is fairly easy to move up to, and your host may even
offer the service of doing for you.

None of my clients currently have a need to upsize or the need for the add
expense.

I guess bottom-line, if one of my clients started getting 6,000 to 10,000
visitor per hour on a consistent basis, and they are making money, then I
would move them to MS SQL.
-

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.

 

[sleepin]

Thomas,

Thank you very much. Your answer is enlightening and gives me a good
foundation for what I needed to know.

 

[Jon]

OK - a week would be long enough to draw conclusions though. Must admit I
was surprised that Access could handle that kind of load consistently.

Jon