4 ms·

There was Access Services in SharePoint but it was depreciated a few years ago. Unfortunately there are some very large companies that use Access in a shared dr

There was Access Services in SharePoint but it was depreciated a few years ago. Unfortunately there are some very large companies that use Access in a shared drive instead. They make daily backups just in case there is data corruption.

stormdennis 4y ago
'just in case there is data corruption' In my experience that was guaranteed if any of the clients connected other than by ethernet. I've not done it but I understand that it's not difficult to have an Access front end for a SQL Server backend rather than the default mdb or accdb backend. All being Microsoft products the migration to SQL server is easy as I understand it. I find it hard to understand why large companies would not adopt this approach.
- EvanAnderson 4y ago
  Access files are definitely super-fragile. That's not isolated to Access, though. Any time a file sharing protocol is used to host a database-- particularly with multi-user locking semantics-- I get the willies. I've done more "development" of Access-based applications over the years than I'd care to admit and, as a menu-driven front end for interaction with a client/server RDBMS (SQL Server, Postgres, etc) I think it's good cheap solution. Visual BASIC for Applications (VBA) can even do some powerful (and arguably ill-advised) stuff like directly calling Win32 APIs. It's an awesome prototyping tool in my experience. The typical Access solution I see in large corporate environments is something knocked-together by non-IT people. Once it gets to the level of needing to be upsized to a client/server RDBMS back-end the "real" IT department comes in and demands a purpose-built solution. Usually bureaucracy, disdain for Access, licensing costs for the client/server RDMS, taking away file servers, etc, end up killing it.
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    Application Packaging was in my past; can confirm the disdain for Access. There was a definite gap in IT Support though. Upon upgrading from Windows XP, Access was removed from the environment AND existing access databases were shoved into a database farm. But any new business needs for something similar IE "Hey IT, we want a little app just to store XYZ business info" fell on deaf ears - the response was always "Hire IT Company to build it and hand it over." which of course would cost tens of thousands rather than a handful and thus priced it out of existence. Which meant of course the business people started finding solutions OUTSIDE of IT Support purview....
krylon 4y ago
> They make daily backups just in case Doesn't everyone make daily backups in production environments? Also, aren't all backups made "just in case"? No sysadmin ever arrives at the office, thinking "Today that accountant is going to mess up the database, I can just feel it in my bones, better make a backup this time" (unless they think that every day...).
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  In this case the production and development "environments" are probably the same exact file lol. You are right on the backup thing. It's just funny to me because access databases on shared drives corrupt very regularly. It's less of it "just in case", and more of a monthly necessity

stormdennis 4y ago

'just in case there is data corruption' In my experience that was guaranteed if any of the clients connected other than by ethernet. I've not done it but I understand that it's not difficult to have an Access front end for a SQL Server backend rather than the default mdb or accdb backend. All being Microsoft products the migration to SQL server is easy as I understand it. I find it hard to understand why large companies would not adopt this approach.

EvanAnderson 4y ago
Access files are definitely super-fragile. That's not isolated to Access, though. Any time a file sharing protocol is used to host a database-- particularly with multi-user locking semantics-- I get the willies. I've done more "development" of Access-based applications over the years than I'd care to admit and, as a menu-driven front end for interaction with a client/server RDBMS (SQL Server, Postgres, etc) I think it's good cheap solution. Visual BASIC for Applications (VBA) can even do some powerful (and arguably ill-advised) stuff like directly calling Win32 APIs. It's an awesome prototyping tool in my experience. The typical Access solution I see in large corporate environments is something knocked-together by non-IT people. Once it gets to the level of needing to be upsized to a client/server RDBMS back-end the "real" IT department comes in and demands a purpose-built solution. Usually bureaucracy, disdain for Access, licensing costs for the client/server RDMS, taking away file servers, etc, end up killing it.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Application Packaging was in my past; can confirm the disdain for Access. There was a definite gap in IT Support though. Upon upgrading from Windows XP, Access was removed from the environment AND existing access databases were shoved into a database farm. But any new business needs for something similar IE "Hey IT, we want a little app just to store XYZ business info" fell on deaf ears - the response was always "Hire IT Company to build it and hand it over." which of course would cost tens of thousands rather than a handful and thus priced it out of existence. Which meant of course the business people started finding solutions OUTSIDE of IT Support purview....

krylon 4y ago

> They make daily backups just in case Doesn't everyone make daily backups in production environments? Also, aren't all backups made "just in case"? No sysadmin ever arrives at the office, thinking "Today that accountant is going to mess up the database, I can just feel it in my bones, better make a backup this time" (unless they think that every day...).

DigiDigiorno 4y ago
In this case the production and development "environments" are probably the same exact file lol. You are right on the backup thing. It's just funny to me because access databases on shared drives corrupt very regularly. It's less of it "just in case", and more of a monthly necessity