Request for recommendations: shared database without a server

Tim Chase python.list at
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 mailing list