Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Is it possible to mount a file system through the Internet?
What program does the trick?
I already searched through the Internet but only found WebNFS Client SDK from Sun which seems to offer something like that, but I am not sure if it is just what I need.
Did anyone try webNFS? What are the experiences? Security?
(My aim is to synchronize two databases located on two servers ondifferent intranet networks, which only have a connection via the Internet.)
We have two separate private networks located on separate premises, which can only be connected together through the Internet using slow (and limited-time) dial-up connections (the ISP of the two sites is the same).
The private networks have similar structure: FreeBSD machines with samba servers, and Win98 clients.
My aim is to create a symbolic link on a FreeBSD machine on one of the private networks, which points to a directory on an other FreeBSD machine on the other private network. This symbolic link would be shared with samba, so that the Windows clients could see it, too.
Is it possible?
If I could mount a remote file system and share it with samba, then I could use the database synchronization functions of MSAccess.
Otherwise I should write a lengthy code to establish the same task (database synchronization).
I took a glance at rsync, too, and I suspect that it would not do the trick:
- there are not many files of which only some change, but there is only one big file (the mdb file) that always changes.
I think that file would be always transmitted as a whole.
Am I wrong?
a) I should setup one SQL database at the main server and create e.g. a PHP script allowing data entry from the remote site?, Or
b) I should create two SQL servers, i.e. one at both ends of the connection (while keeping MSAccess as the user interface at both ends) I heard something that SQL servers can do database synchronization. Does it need extensive programming?
I do not know which way to go, yet, but I know that I should avoid extensive programming, and keep MS access as the user interface since the users prefer that.
Meanwhile I took an other glance at rsync and found that it promises limited traffic even if a large file changes. So, maybe that is the good choice. I will install it on two servers on the intranet and watch how much traffic it generates. If it suits the dial-up connection, too, that can be the simplest solution.
My knowledge of MS ODBC is a little skethy, but what I meant was, create the SQL server at the main site. You should be able to add SQL databases in MS ODBC as a data source that connects to remote SQL Server and connect your Access front end to that database. (Access as a database front end is a real waste, IMNSHO, you might eventually want to investigate re-creating yoru forms / code in Visual Basic or other RAD tool of your choice.) Synchronizing a Database file for concurent usage is just a *bad* thing overall, made even worse if you try to do it over a slow link.
In this practical case, it would be sufficient if synchronization were done once in every night. Syncronization during the working hours is not a must, but it can also be established occasionally, meanwhile the access to the database is naturally denied to the users.
So, I will try rsync today.
I already have some experience with MySQL with MSAccess as a front-end on the Windows platform. Queries, data-lookups were OK, but I had difficulties with data entry, especially when there were related tables in the database.