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
> Unc Vs. Mapped Drive, Access 2016    
 
   
ngins
post Jul 11 2019, 08:58 PM
Post#1



Posts: 322
Joined: 18-August 05
From: DFW, TX, USA


I've read in several places where people recommend using UNC paths instead of mapped drives when linking Access tables. Apart from logistical issues (some users might have drives mapped differently), are there any PERFORMANCE issues related using mapped drives vs. UNC paths?

With a certain database, there is a small group of users, and all have the same mapped drives, and no one will change anything. So there are no logistical issues to be concerned with.

Would there be any performance or resource usage gain by switching to UNC links instead of mapped drive links?

Thanks!

--------------------
Neil
Accessing since '96
Go to the top of the page
 
WildBird
post Jul 11 2019, 09:04 PM
Post#2


UtterAccess VIP
Posts: 3,582
Joined: 19-August 03
From: Auckland, Little Australia


I think any performance gains would be minimal, but the added ease of deployment using UNC means I never use anything but UNC. I have a function that relinks all tables on opening, and a splash screen that shows what table is being relinked. I find people have no issue with this as it shows them something when it is opening. If you want code, let me know.

Cheers

--------------------
Beer, natures brain defragging tool.
Go to the top of the page
 
ngins
post Jul 11 2019, 09:35 PM
Post#3



Posts: 322
Joined: 18-August 05
From: DFW, TX, USA


Thanks, Bill. No, I have code that automatically relinks tables. It's just that we've been getting a lot of System Resource Exceeded errors since moving to A16/Win10, and I was looking for ways to conserve resources, is all.

--------------------
Neil
Accessing since '96
Go to the top of the page
 
jleach
post Jul 12 2019, 09:03 AM
Post#4


UtterAccess Editor
Posts: 10,021
Joined: 7-December 09
From: St Augustine, FL


I agree that it shouldn't make much difference in performance. Reference to a mapped drive needs to be resolved to the UNC path by the system anyway, so if anything the mapped drive would be maybe just a tad slower, but we're talking milliseconds (or fractions of them), the this information is stored by the system already anyway so it's no extra resources being used.

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Jul 12 2019, 09:52 AM
Post#5


UA Admin
Posts: 35,339
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


I'm a bit of a contrarian, perhaps. I do not use mapped drives for networked backends unless it's required by some network rule, or I have a network admin who guarantees everyone maps to the same network share using the same drive.

Why? Because, although it's likely that all users will have the same mappings for network shares, it's not guaranteed. You're counting on an enforcement regime to ensure compliance. If your organization has that kind of control, it's good. In some smaller environments, there's no one looking over users' shoulders to ensure they do "the right thing" all the time.


--------------------
My Real Name Is George. Grover Park Consulting is where I do business.
How to Ask a Good Question
Beginning SQL Server
Go to the top of the page
 
ngins
post Jul 12 2019, 12:26 PM
Post#6



Posts: 322
Joined: 18-August 05
From: DFW, TX, USA


Thanks, Jack, for the reply and confirmation.

And thanks, George, for the input. I agree in general. In this case, the company has about 10 users, and the only one who configures the machines is an IT guy the company has who comes in once a week. So I think in this case it's pretty safe, though I agree with you in general about the pitfalls of using mapped drives.

--------------------
Neil
Accessing since '96
Go to the top of the page
 


Custom Search


RSSSearch   Top   Lo-Fi    24th July 2019 - 12:40 AM