优点&共享前端MDB（客户端工作站与服务器）的缺点 [英] Pros & Cons of sharing a front end MDB (Client workstation vs. Server)
问题描述
我已经部署了一些Access应用程序将它分为前端和后端
结束。我们的环境使用Win XP SP2用于客户端，Win 2k3用于服务器
和Access 2003。客户端数量约为50（并发
用户估计约为10）。
虽然Back End总是存在于服务器上，但我不是很清楚
前端应该住的地方。
我在网上搜索并发现矛盾的观点。
普通感觉告诉我，如果我在服务器中有前端那么
维护应该是轻而易举的，因为你维护所有表格，
VBA代码，库，选项等在一个地方 - 但我不是
非常清楚*什么*访问功能在服务器上管理和
*什么*管理（和依赖）在工作站的安装
访问。
但它*似乎*在共享环境中最好拥有每个
客户端在他们的工作站上安装了前端的副本
，因为包含锁定信息的LDB文件似乎更好地工作了 - 这将是高维护，因为有~50
的客户需要维护。
这是正确的吗？如果
我将前端生活在客户端的工作站上而不是
让前端生活在服务器上，我将不会有更少的机会遇到LDB文件问题吗？多个
客户访问？
分离式MDB的共享环境中最佳做法是什么？
To可以直接在服务器上访问前端，还是在每个客户端的工作站上安装前端？
I have deployed few Access apps splitting it in Front End and Back
End. Our environment uses Win XP SP2 for clients, Win 2k3 for servers
and Access 2003. The max. number of clients is about 50 (concurrent
users is estimated around 10).
Whilst the Back End always lives on a server, I am not quite clear
where the Front End should live.
I have searched the web and find contradicting views.
Common sense tells me that if I have the Front End in the server then
maintenance should be a breeze because you maintain all your forms,
VBA codes, libraries, options, etc in just one place - but I am not
quite clear about *what* Access features are managed on the server and
*what* are managed (and dependent) on the workstation''s install of
Access.
But it *seems* that in a shared environment it is better to have each
client with a copy of the Front End installed at their workstations
because the LDB file that contains the locking information seems to
work better - and this would be high maintenance because there are ~50
clients to maintain.
Is this correct? Will I have less chance of trouble with LDB files if
I have the Front End living on client''s workstations as opposed to
having the Front End living on a server and being accessed by multiple
clients?
What would be best practice in a shared environment for a split MDB?
To have the Front End being accessed directly on the server or to
install the Front End on each client''s workstation?
推荐答案
" Max Vit" < mv ** @ safe-mail.netwrote in message
news：11 ******************** @ e9g2000prf.googlegroup s。 com ...
"Max Vit" <mv**@safe-mail.netwrote in message
news:11********************@e9g2000prf.googlegroup s.com...
>我已经部署了几个Access应用程序在前端和后面分割它
结束。我们的环境使用Win XP SP2用于客户端，Win 2k3用于服务器
和Access 2003。客户端数量约为50（并发
用户估计约为10）。
虽然Back End总是存在于服务器上，但我不是很清楚
前端应该住的地方。
我在网上搜索并发现矛盾的观点。
普通感觉告诉我，如果我在服务器中有前端那么
维护应该是轻而易举的，因为你维护所有表格，
VBA代码，库，选项等在一个地方 - 但我不是
非常清楚*什么*访问功能在服务器上管理和
*什么*管理（和依赖）在工作站的安装
访问。
但它*似乎*在共享环境中最好拥有每个
客户端在他们的工作站上安装了前端的副本
，因为包含锁定信息的LDB文件似乎更好地工作了 - 这将是更好的 - 这将是高维护，因为有~50
的客户需要维护。
这是正确的吗？如果
我将前端生活在客户端的工作站上而不是
让前端生活在服务器上，我将不会有更少的机会遇到LDB文件问题吗？多个
客户访问？
分离式MDB的共享环境中最佳做法是什么？
To是否可以直接在服务器上访问前端或
在每个客户端的工作站上安装前端？
>I have deployed few Access apps splitting it in Front End and Back
End. Our environment uses Win XP SP2 for clients, Win 2k3 for servers
and Access 2003. The max. number of clients is about 50 (concurrent
users is estimated around 10).
Whilst the Back End always lives on a server, I am not quite clear
where the Front End should live.
I have searched the web and find contradicting views.
Common sense tells me that if I have the Front End in the server then
maintenance should be a breeze because you maintain all your forms,
VBA codes, libraries, options, etc in just one place - but I am not
quite clear about *what* Access features are managed on the server and
*what* are managed (and dependent) on the workstation''s install of
Access.
But it *seems* that in a shared environment it is better to have each
client with a copy of the Front End installed at their workstations
because the LDB file that contains the locking information seems to
work better - and this would be high maintenance because there are ~50
clients to maintain.
Is this correct? Will I have less chance of trouble with LDB files if
I have the Front End living on client''s workstations as opposed to
having the Front End living on a server and being accessed by multiple
clients?
What would be best practice in a shared environment for a split MDB?
To have the Front End being accessed directly on the server or to
install the Front End on each client''s workstation?
在一个完美的世界中，差异将归结为
更新的性能和易用性。个别（本地）前端表现更好，单个前端
（可能）具有版本控制/更新站点的一些优势。
In现实世界虽然我们必须补充一个共享单个前端的事实
大大增加了文件损坏的可能性，包括后端数据损坏后的
。这一点意味着应该从各个前端（最好是本地安装）运行所有共享应用程序
。
除了这一点之外还有一长串列表安装前端单独安装的其他优点以及使用任何
（更新/版本控制）这一事实>
的一系列自动更新策略。
-
Rick Brandt，Microsoft Access MVP
电子邮件（视情况而定）至......
在Hunter dot com的RBrandt
In a perfect world the difference would come down to performance and ease of
updates. Individual (local) front ends perform better and a single front end
(might) have some advantages from a version control/update stand-point.
In the real world though we have to add the fact that sharing a single front end
vastly increases the chance of file corruption including corruption of the data
in the back end. This single point means that ALL shared apps should be run
from individual front ends (preferably locally installed).
Beyond that single point is a long list of other advantages that individually
installed front ends has and the fact that the one dubious disadvantage
(updates/version control) is easily solved for individual front ends using any
of a number of auto-update strategies.
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
7月16日下午12:23， Rick Brandt < rickbran ... @ hotmail.comwrote：
On Jul 16, 12:23 pm, "Rick Brandt" <rickbran...@hotmail.comwrote:
在现实世界中虽然我们必须添加共享单个前端的事实
大大增加了文件损坏的可能性，包括后端数据损坏
。这一点意味着应该从各个前端（最好是本地安装）运行所有共享应用程序
。
In the real world though we have to add the fact that sharing a single front end
vastly increases the chance of file corruption including corruption of the data
in the back end. This single point means that ALL shared apps should be run
from individual front ends (preferably locally installed).
谢谢Rick - 所以我读过有关使用瘦客户端（Citrix，Tarantella）或终端服务器通过WAN共享访问权限的信息
这不是一个明智的想法，因为它依赖于在一个地点有一个前端是多个客户访问的
，从而增加了腐败机会？或者
我错过了什么？
Thanks Rick - So what I have read about sharing Access over the WAN
using a thin client (Citrix, Tarantella) or Terminal Servers is not a
wise idea as it relies having a Front End in a single spot being
accessed by multiple clients and thus enhancing corruption chances? Or
am I missing something?
" Max Vit" < mv ** @ safe-mail.netwrote
"Max Vit" <mv**@safe-mail.netwrote
虽然Back End总是存在于服务器上，但是b $ b我还不太清楚前端
应该住的地方。
我在网上搜索了
与之相悖的观点。
Whilst the Back End always lives on a server,
I am not quite clear where the Front End
should live.
I have searched the web and find
contradicting views.
如果是这样，那么你要么访问的不同来源不是我 -
因为明显知识渊博的人在帖子中的强烈共识在我经常使用的
新闻组中，每个用户都获得了FE的副本。
多用户问题的最佳Access资源之一是Tony Toews ''site，
http：//www.granite.ab。 CA / accsmstr.htm 。您将在我的网站上找到他的AutoFEUpdater
，并在我的网站 http：/ /accdevel.tripod.com ，其中一篇文章是
onversioning"这是一个稍微不同的方法来解决
让用户版本保持最新的问题。
Larry Linson
Microsoft访问MVP
If so, then you have either been visiting different sources than I --
because the strong concensus in posts by clearly-knowledgeable people in the
newsgroups I frequent is "each user gets a copy of the FE".
One of the best Access resources for multiuser issues is Tony Toews'' site,
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm. You''ll find his AutoFEUpdater
described, and at my site http://accdevel.tripod.com, one of the articles is
on "versioning" which is a slightly different approach to the issue of
keeping users versions up-to-date.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
这篇关于优点&共享前端MDB（客户端工作站与服务器）的缺点的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
