Originally sent at 11:53 EST. Didn't see it come through on the list...
trying again...
Well to me, not matter how you slice it, it doesn't really make much sense
to stick Access on a different machine. In order to get to your Access db
on the other machine, you are going to have to access it through a network
share, which will only work if CF is running under it's own NT account,
etc... way too much trouble, and you are adding an extra layer of complexity
and potential failure which is totally unneeded.
The "behind the firewall" argument is valid, and when you do move up to a
SQL server DB, I would consider it. Also, instead of literally sticking it
behind a firewall, you might also consider adding a second NIC to the CF
box, and running a dedicated patch cable straight to the SQL box. This
would eliminate one additional potential complexity and points of failure
(the firewall), and provide a similar amount of security to your
application.
So go ahead and get the Access box so that Net Admin Guy keeps his budget,
and use it as a Quake server till your upgrade to SQL Server.... Management
will never know...
-Cameron
--------------------
Cameron Childress
elliptIQ Inc.
p.770.460.7277.232
f.770.460.0963
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:45 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: N Tier
>
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> You wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, is seems that what you are attempting to do
> is a little
> > strange. What is the reason you feel the need to do this? Access is a
>
> Well, I generally defer all network related issues to our rather
> overzealous network admin, Net Admin Guy, whose general rule is
> to have one
> box for every application (only slight exaggeration). He
> advocates with the
> n-tier concept ("Cool! another box!" exclaims Net Admin Guy), and
> off we go.
> I'll eventually upgrade our Access to SQL Server for a couple of reasons,
> but again, for most of our projects, that's not really necessary.
>
> Net Admin Guy also mentioned that our db should be behind a firewall;
> another reason for embracing n-tier. "This sounds practical," says CF Guy.
>
> Due to my lack of knowledge and fear that if I did speak up his funding
> would be reduced (better overkill than overload), I remain
> silent, but would
> love to hear more from a performance/security standpoint whether I should
> advocate n-tier myself or remain neutral in our fairly low traffic
> environment.
>
> Thanks to all for your suggestions!
>
> 8-)
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
