Request for recommendations: shared database without a server
python.list at tim.thechases.com
Thu Oct 5 22:27:55 CEST 2006
> Access might really be the best solution. It is pretty good
> for what it is supposed to do, and the quick prototyping and
> UI-designing are strong arguments for it, especially if there
> already is a bias towards it.
> I also _think_ that the whole "db on a shared volume" thing
> works comparably neat.
Just a caveat from past experience...I've had trouble with Access
(at least older version) sharing DBs on a network drive. It
didn't work /too/ badly, but it scaled horribly. 3 concurrent
users was noticably slow. 5 concurrent users was painful. Above
10 users was agony.
Fortunately, I was one of the ones redesigning the replacement
system to actually use a database server. Granted, as merely a
PFY at the time, I didn't have much input into the choice of
server (MS-SQLServer) nor into the language (Visual FoxPro), just
got to execute the plans of the higher-ups.
More information about the Python-list