>We had a similar problem when we put an Access database on an NT server. We
>moved the database to a Unix server (Solaris 2.6) and let the clients access
>it via hummingbird nfs. Still unacceptably slow.
>Luckily, we have paid for Microsoft Premier Support. We decided to use it.
>Microsoft told us that we're not supposed to do that. Access databases are
>only supposed to be accessed from the local disk. If you need to share a
>database, Microsoft says that you need to setup an SQL server and put the
>The problem is not Linux.
It is certainly true that it is not a good idea to use .mdb Access databases
across a lan, but I am surprised that the original poster is seeing such a
large degradation. We have run Access to databases on file servers at the far
end of a 64k ISDN line and, though the performance is irritatingly slow, it is
usable. On a 100 Base/T network, I would not have expected the degradation to
be very noticable.
I wonder if you have all the necessary indexes in place? You must remember
that Access reading an mdb database across a network is not running in
client/server mode - it is opening a binary file and reading it random access.
If you don't have the appropriate indexes in place, it will have to do table
scans which could involve moving large amounts of data back and forth across
your lan. If the database has not been compacted for a while and has become
fragmented, this could become even worse...
The lack of indexes would impact on local performance as well, of course, but
if you have enough memory in the machine for it to have allocated a reasonably
large disk cache, this may not be very noticable. Networked disk access,
however, can never be safely cached, so you will always see a substantial