Quote:
Question about this MDB file... Is it separated into a front-end and back-end database? If so, is it self-created or from a vendor?

Whoa... I have to be honest: I have no idea. My girlfriend created this database herself in access. I have to admit that I don't know what the difference is between a front-end or back-end database.
I'll ask her to be sure.

Quote:

I've had good success with using mysql as the backend database for MS Access apps. MySQL server will run on both windows and linux and is significantly more stable for a network environment than an Access mdb file. You then simply link the tables through odbc and you'll never know it's there.

This sounds very nice! So you're saying I should run MySQL (have heard about this, but don't really know what it is... again: ), and link the tables to that? Could you expain this a bit more please?
The way I was thinking to do it, was by simply putting this .MDB file onto the server, and giving access to it from the three different PC's. Since five people can work into one .MDB file at the same time, I didn't think this would be a problem.
What would then actually be the benefit of using mySQL?

Quote:

If you were to run MySQL or some other database of your choice, you could remotely connect to it through an SSH tunnel as opposed to a full VPN.

Again:
Seems I'm in for quite some fun. On the other hand, I also expect to learn a lot from it. So, here's one thing I can learn already...: what is the difference between those two?

Quote:

I had a similar situation for our reps when on the road. We have a customer database with an access front-end and mysql back-end. I wrote a little script that detects whether they are on the local network or not and if not, opens a ssh tunnel with putty and starts the database and automatically relinks the tables. Works great for our needs.

Quote:
A quick addendum: You could use the D-Link DI-824VUP router for the home office as opposed to the one you reference and the software should be very similar. Then you could use the VPN capabilites built-in to the router.

Quote:
Only one person can dial into the VPN at a time. If you have two users who need to VPN into the local office, you'll need to use a different method.

Reason: PPTP VPN, when traversing NAT, encrypts the packets that tell it what the internal (nat-ed) addresses are. So you can get the router passing through the VPN packets just fine, but it can't tell the difference between one person's VPN connection and the next person's VPN connection.

Quote:

I think that I was asking for similar help on this BBS during that time. It would have been almost exactly two years ago. Perhaps some of the information in that thread would help. Anyone got a link to it?

Quote:
I take it this was a limitation of the PPTP protocol, and not Windows 2003's fault?

Quote:

Quote:
I take it this was a limitation of the PPTP protocol, and not Windows 2003's fault?

Correct.

Basically, it means: Trying to tunnel through a NAT router to a VPN server is really limited. You're better off getting a router that can work as a VPN endpoint itself. As was mentioned above, there are some cheap routers that work this way, or can be firmware-flashed to work this way.

Quote:
Things I would need on this router: wireless capability, a gigabit switch, and now also VPN IP sec server stuff. All the rest I would need (like port forwarding and stuff) is so common with even the cheapest routers these days I won't even bother to post it.

Heh.. Even my CAD$22.50 cheapie wireless-G routers have VPN endpoint functionality.
I haven't used it (yet), but it probably works like everything else on it.



Cheers

Quote:

Note that I tried to do that very thing two years ago with a cheap Linksys router that was, in theory, supposed to be able to work as a VPN endpoint. I couldn't get it to work. I gave up and went with SonicWall, which was more expensive, but which Just Worked.

I've never heard of SonicWall over here, so I guess that brand is not all that common ever here. (though I do see they've got a UK and German site)
I wasn't going to use Linksys either. I've had bad experiences with it in the past. I was thinking more of Draytek, more in particular the 2600g model which can do about anything I want it to. The only thing it lacks is an internal gigabit switch it seems. Which I think is a shame, because all the PC's I'm going to connect it to have built-in gigabit ethernet connections.
It seems gigabit routers are still pretty rare for consumer or semi-professional use. Shame.

Quote:

My recommendation is to look online at the user manuals for the router you're thinking of getting (or the user manuals for the replacement flash software, if you're going that route), and make sure the instructions explicitly show how to set up such a situation, indicating that it's a supported feature. If you can find that info, then you're probably OK to buy that router.

Quote:
I've seen this complaint here and elsewhere about the lack of gigabit home routers. Not a single home router is capable of routing at anything close to 100bT speeds.

Quote:

Assuming you own some duct tape and a patch cable, the only valid complaint is that you don't want to deal with two wall warts.

Quote:
I've seen this complaint here and elsewhere about the lack of gigabit home routers. Not a single home router is capable of routing at anything close to 100bT speeds. Assuming you own some duct tape and a patch cable, the only valid complaint is that you don't want to deal with two wall warts.

I know this isn't important for a connection over the internet, but remember I also want to use this router in the the internal LAN. Those PC's would benefit from gigabit lan. I know I can fix this by adding a gigabit LAN switch, but I would rather see all this in one nice little box which does it all.
Power consumption, as Mark states, is one issue. (small one) Another one is the added amount to the total cost (even smaller one) and the fact that it doesn't look so...neat.

Quote:
Sure: client-to-client.

Quote:
...(small one)...(even smaller one)... and the fact that it doesn't look so...neat.

Quote:
I gave up, said fuck it, replaced the cheapo router with a SonicWall TZ-170

Quote:
... Rather than shifting .mdb data across the wire, personally I would simply use Server 2003's remote desktop connection and merely use the travelling PC as a terminal. AFAIK, you get a bundled 1-user administrator licence for remote desktop. The benefits are that you're reducing the risk of corrupting the .mdb file if your remote connection drops, you are not carrying possibly sensitive data around on a laptop that is easily lost/stolen, everything is taking place on the local server so your remote connection speed just limits your screen updating speed, your remote PC requirements are minimal.....

I read down through the discussion waiting to see someone make the point you make here re: "rather than shifting .mdb data across the wire." And I would say that this is doubly important if, as seems the case, this is a monolithic MS-Access application -- no separation of data and interface. I've never seen folks less happy than some cases of people trying to run monolithic MS-Access apps natively off of a disk far, far away. Separating out data into something like MySQL could improve this, but, for many folks that adds too much complexity relative to scale of what is being done. Remote control (RDP, Terminal services, Citrix) lets you be fairly content with an unmodified LAN-oriented app.

Once your network/VPN bits are sorted out, you might try an A-B comparison. From your remote PC, open the MDB from whatever directory you have shared on box "X". Then run box X from same client via RDP -- opening yoru MDB in that RDP session -- and see if you aren't happier. And no data sloshing around

Quote:
The Draytek Vigor is a good router. ... I still prefer the Sonicwall TZ170 personally.

Quote:
Just FYI, I have a used SonicWall TZ 170 (non wireless) available for sale if interested. It's a US model. I don't know what would be different other than the power adapter.

Quote:

It's a 25-user model and has 2 VPN licenses.

Quote:

I have attached a screen shot of the main status page.

Quote:

Quote:

It's a 25-user model and has 2 VPN licenses.

What does this mean? 25 users can connect to this router, but only two of them can be outside clients via VPN? (the 23 others are on the local LAN I mean?)

Quote:
I'm pretty sure it means there can be 25 local users and 2 VPN users simultaneously. We only have about 16 local nodes, so the limits were never tested.