| Author |
 Topic  |
|
muzishun
Senior Member
United States
1079 Posts |
 Posted - 14 September 2005 : 20:22:32
|
I tried looking this up here, but didn't find much explaining specifically what I'm looking for. Here's the deal:
I'm in the very early stages of creating a web portal that, once it's off the ground, will hopefully have up to several hundred users online at any given time. I would like to know (as certain as possible) how many concurrent users the different databases can handle. I'll be using a very highly modified Snitz as the backend.
This would also be pretty useful to know in other projects that may come up. Some people probably won't need anything more than Access or MySQL depending on what their expected traffic is.
Thanks in advance. |
Bill Parrott
Senior Web Programmer, University of Kansas
Co-Owner and Code Monkey, Eternal Second Designs (www.eternalsecond.com)
Personal Website (www.chimericdream.com) |
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2005 : 20:30:08
|
I know Access can handle around 10-12 simultanious users per table. MSDE works like SQL Server up to a point, then throttles down (can't be giving the good stuff for free now can we... ) As for SQL Server itself, its limited to what your server can physically handle.
Since I'm not familiar with MySQL, I'll leave that for the experts. 
If I can find it again, I'll add the link in the MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com) that has the complete chart breaking down Access, MSDE, and SQL Server.
All things being equal, if you have access to SQL Server or MySQL I'd use it; even if its a small site. The transaction logs and backup capabilities alone are worthwile. As soon as I upgrade my hosting package I plan on converting the Warsong Records Forum over to SQL Server.
(Isn't what I had originally found, but this might be a good start.) |
Edited by - AnonJr on 14 September 2005 20:32:09 |
 |
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2005 : 20:34:40
|
AFAIK Access has a limit (theoretical) of 255 concurrent users. When using it as a DB on a web server, the value is way much lower, though I've seen posts with people describing forums where they used to have something like 25-60 users online (which does not mean that all of them were accessing the database simultaneously). Depending on the server, anything from 10 concurrent users on can be problematic, but some servers can handle more than that.
If you can go with SQL Server or MySQL, go. |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2005 : 20:45:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by ruirib
When using it as a DB on a web server, the value is way much lower, though
I've found the opposite in practice... though according to Microsoft it has more to do with how many people are accessing a given table than the database itself...
quote:
Originally posted by ruirib
If you can go with SQL Server or MySQL, go.
Either way, its a ditto on this!  Despite what Microsoft says, you aren't going to support a high traffic site on Access... it was designed for single-user desktop apps (and does that well enough).
|
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 01:47:58
|
The problem with access on a heavy usage web site is not really limitations of the jet .mdb, but the ado drivers. The way access drivers work doesn't scale well in a web environment, and overloaded access-based sites are prone to various problems, like "my asp pages don't work and I have to restart IIS" or "sometimes I get errors about dataset not found or whatever but not always" or "unspecified error"
Most of these errors are IIS/ado driver related, not exactly Access related.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 05:03:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by ruirib
AFAIK Access has a limit (theoretical) of 255 concurrent users.
Truth spoken! Yep, the limit is 255 concurrent connections, however remember you may hit locking issues well before that depending on how you've designed your DB - if you are designing a web-client DB and design it well, you can run some pretty chunky sites just with JET/MDB's (Toyota ran their main site with JET for ages - no idea now though).
In the very beginning, Access was designed as a replacement for Cardfile , so was planned as a lightweight single-user app. Marketing thought a multi-user db would win market share (and it did!), but the multi-user stuff always felt a bit of a retro-fit as opposed to a ground-up design.
MS SQL Server has always been multi-user by design, and then is becoming easier and easier for regular users to use (Enterprise Manager, wizards, etc). Don't be mistaken that it's not a hugely powerful DB inside though, and it willgrow with you (MS run entirely on SQL Server, unsurprisingly, including many multi-TB warehouses etc). It has a lot of great stuff like self-tuning (important for big DB's - I've been told by Oracle DBA's that they spend 20 mins a day tuning - over half-a-month every year - just tuning!) , triggers, DRI, DTS, gosh, loads of stuff.
MySQL is kinda in-between. The price is right, but would I want to bet my company on it? Not yet.
hth
>>edit for typo |
Edited by - pdrg on 15 September 2005 05:04:15 |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 10:18:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doug G
The problem with access on a heavy usage web site is not really limitations of the jet .mdb, but the ado drivers.
Huh. Learn something new every day. I had always thought it was a JET issue and not the drivers.... |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 10:46:50
|
and the design of the db and the type of recordset/cursor used and all kinds of other factors contribute...
JET itself is pretty good since it bought FoxPro just to get at the Rushmore optimisations! |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 10:50:17
|
| Ther is also another alternative which should work with Snitz although I'm unsure whether anybody has tested it, and that is FirebirdSQL |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 10:56:39
|
| I'd seen that name floating around, but I haven't had a chance to check it out... maybe its time. |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 11:04:09
|
FirebirdSQL ? Never heard of it....checking it out right now.
I'm no SQL wizz, so perhaps you could tell me if this means that it's fully MS SQL compliant ?
quote:
Firebird has full SQL 92 Entry Level 1 Support and implements most of the SQL-99 standard, plus some very useful additions. This includes DML/DDL statements, FULL/LEFT/RIGHT [OUTER] JOIN syntax, UNION, DISTINCT clauses, subselects (IN, EXISTS), internal functions (AVG, SUM, MIN, MAX, COALESCE, CASE, ..), constraints (PRIMARY KEY, UNIQUE, FOREIGN KEY), as well as all common SQL data types.
In other words ; is this an alternative for the pricey SQL 2000 license? |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 11:25:53
|
sounds like it's worth a try - don't know how 'enterprise grade' it is though - eg how does it scale?
However syntax support looks good, and at a glance this looks way better than MySQL imvho |
|
|
|
muzishun
Senior Member
United States
1079 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 13:06:26
|
| Wow. I'm glad I asked this. I'll be checking out FirebirdSQL to see if it's something I may be able to use. I've begun working on the core of the site that I am developing, and I have installed a base Snitz. I'm in the process of pruning out all of the things that won't be needed in the final site. My partner and I are hoping to release this sometime in the Spring, so I'll probably post here asking for anyone who's interested in beta testing in late Winter. |
Bill Parrott
Senior Web Programmer, University of Kansas
Co-Owner and Code Monkey, Eternal Second Designs (www.eternalsecond.com)
Personal Website (www.chimericdream.com) |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 13:23:39
|
You can count on us!  |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 13:24:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by muzishun
My partner and I are hoping to release this sometime in the Spring, so I'll probably post here asking for anyone who's interested in beta testing in late Winter.
No probs! |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2005 : 13:41:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by pdrg
sounds like it's worth a try - don't know how 'enterprise grade' it is though - eg how does it scale?
However syntax support looks good, and at a glance this looks way better than MySQL imvho
It is an alternative to MySQL, but imho a lot more resilient and scalable, it currently has pretty much an equal market share to mySQL.
It started life as Interbase, an Inprise (Borland) owned database. It is very popular amongst Delphi and .net coders. I couldn't say how many hosts support it, but some do. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
