FE/BE vs FULL DATABASE ON SERVER

[Guest]

Hello There,

I read many threads about the benefits of splitting a MDB into FE/BE. One of
the benefits was that the LAN just for actual data, and not loading forms for
example, since the FE is in the user's machine. So I did it. But instead of
improving, it made the performance worse.
Then I searched for threads on how to improve the performance in a FE/BE
database and I have been taken to the following website
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm where I found a
very useful tip on how to make a persistent connection. So I did it as well,
and guess what, the performance hasn't improved a bit. It is still twice
slower than the whole database being opened from the server.
So I felt a bit disappointed on not being able to accomplish such a task.
Is there anything I am doing wrong? What coud it be the reason for the
performance being so bad?

I'll appreciate any help.

 

[Guest]

How many concurrent users? If you have only one or two users, then an unsplit
database might seem faster. However, once you get, say, five or more
concurrent users, a split database, with each users having a local copy of
the FE, is going to be much faster than an unsplit database having the same
number of users.

Also speed isn't the only, maybe even the best, reason to split a database.
Rather it's to prevent data loss and other corruption issues. A BE with just
tables is very robust, whereas the FE with forms and reports can corrupt. In
that case you just install a new FE. If the database is not split, then the
entire thing, including data, can be trashed.

 

[Tony Toews]

I read many threads about the benefits of splitting a MDB into FE/BE. One of
the benefits was that the LAN just for actual data, and not loading forms for
example, since the FE is in the user's machine. So I did it. But instead of
improving, it made the performance worse.
Then I searched for threads on how to improve the performance in a FE/BE
database and I have been taken to the following website
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm where I found a
very useful tip on how to make a persistent connection. So I did it as well,
and guess what, the performance hasn't improved a bit. It is still twice
slower than the whole database being opened from the server.
So I felt a bit disappointed on not being able to accomplish such a task.
Is there anything I am doing wrong? What coud it be the reason for the
performance being so bad?

I noticed the same thing in A97. I don't know that there's a lot that
can be done other then going through the other performance tips on my
website.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm