UtterAccess.com
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome to UtterAccess! Please ( Login   or   Register )

Custom Search
 
   Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Nas Vs Server For Access Be, Older Windows versions    
 
   
fab1
post Sep 13 2017, 12:42 PM
Post#1



Posts: 173
Joined: 6-August 08



Hi All, Not sure which forum to use. I helped a local business owner years ago complete a small CRM DB which I split /BE to his server then FE copies were added to the 3 networked pc’s. He got back in touch and advised me he wanted to add 2 more FE/ pcs and make sure he meets the changes to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rule changes. He advised me he had discussed with a local IT company about upgrading the windows 2000 server but they suggested as its only used for the BE and a document store they suggested saving £££ and replacing it with a Synology NAS Diskstation DS416.

The local win10 pcs drives are all BitLocker encrypted and the BE & FE were upgraded to .accdb which have also been encrypted. I got him to check the size of the BE and its not even at 1gb so no need for SQL in the next 5years. I'm, not an IT/network person and I’ve never played with Synology NAS Diskstation DS416.

Anybody see any glaring problems ahead or have any suggestion?
Cheers
FAB1




Go to the top of the page
 
kfield7
post Sep 13 2017, 01:06 PM
Post#2



Posts: 733
Joined: 12-November 03
From: Conroe, TX


I have used an LG NAS for a BE, no issues whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
 
nvogel
post Sep 13 2017, 02:26 PM
Post#3



Posts: 776
Joined: 26-January 14
From: London, UK


Hmmm. I suspect that either: A) someone's trying to rip him off by selling him an expensive box he doesn't need, OR B) you are asking totally the wrong question. The NAS product you mention apparently comes with 12TB storage. If he needs 12TB storage then this question has nothing to do with a 1GB Access database.

Getting rid of the Windows 2000 box is the right thing to do. Windows 2000 is no longer supported and his data and software is at risk because he lacks up-to-date security software and patches.

For a similar price as the NAS box there are other options: a budget server on premises; server hosting; cloud storage. All depends what his actual requirements are. I would hesitate to recommend a NAS solution because I can't imagine there are many situations where NAS makes sense these days. I may be wrong though.


This post has been edited by nvogel: Sep 13 2017, 02:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
fab1
post Sep 14 2017, 05:54 AM
Post#4



Posts: 173
Joined: 6-August 08



Hi kfield7, thx for the reply
This post has been edited by fab1: Sep 14 2017, 05:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
fab1
post Sep 14 2017, 06:00 AM
Post#5



Posts: 173
Joined: 6-August 08



Hi nvogel, A couple of updates about me “asking totally the wrong question” Had another chat with him found out he's only wanting an on-premise solution. Seemingly he had an issue with his broadband last year for 4days and that made up his mind about not using cloud solutions saying that he uses dropbox as an offsite redundancy for his backup. He didn't discuss specifics prices and I thought it was a bit cheeky to ask but he did mention the solution he was offered by the local IT company was not much more than the Windows Server 2016 licence alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
nvogel
post Sep 14 2017, 08:47 AM
Post#6



Posts: 776
Joined: 26-January 14
From: London, UK


Thanks for the update fab1. What I said about asking the "wrong question" was intended to help rather than criticize. I hope it didn't come across the wrong way. To be honest, I didn't notice that this question was asked in the "PC" forum. I just assumed it was an Access related question and so I couldn't understand why TB scale storage would be needed. Now I understand you better, but I'm no expert on this kind of hardware question so I don't think I can be much help.
Go to the top of the page
 


Custom Search
RSSSearch   Top   Lo-Fi    24th September 2017 - 09:09 AM