>>First, let me describe the scenario
>>
>>There's an accountant (bean counter).
>>The accountant has customers.
>>Each customer has several years for which books are kept
>>
>>In foxpro I had a root folder, containing a folder for each customer, each containing a folder per year
>>
>>
>>Some customers do their own bookkeeping - to a certain extent - mail the 'year' to the accountant who may make some changes and mail it back. The customer's database is readonly whilst the accountant has the year's database - and vice versa
>>
>>So I'm thinking to do the same in .net with sqlserver
>>
>>Mail: I think I can backup/restore the database in sqlserver
>>
>>Sql server: The accountant would have an sql server whilst the customers would access the database with the native drivers.
>>The sql server can be 'told' to do certain things - like attaching or detaching databases
>>
>>There are many customers - installing/maintaining an sqlserver service is not feasible in terms of work/problems. They have a 'light and simple' accountancy software - nothing very fancy. It runs without (too many) problems in foxpro and I would like to keep it that way.
>>
>>Server Access: I think I cannot work with Windows authentication and need sql server authentication. Each database will be created with a specific owner, ie the same for all databases. The system has to be simple and transparant for the users
>>
>>
>>One of the thoughts was to put all the years of one customer into a single database. But that would not make things simple to exchange a part (year) between the accountant and the customers - would it ?
>>
>>
>>Does this sound like the 'right' approach ?
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>
>Hi Gregory,
>
>For me using just one database sounds like a good approach. I remember I was having a similar problem in 2003 when I needed to create a SQL Server database for something we had in FoxPro. We had databases for each state (MA, RI, CT, NH) and I was thinking of creating a SQL Server database for each state as well. Luckily I called Sergey that time and he helped me to figure out that SQL Server is a completely different storage and you don't need to worry about 2GB limit, etc.

I do not think I can work with 'one' database. Should everything reside at one site, I could but lots of pieces a scattered around the country. One big database would mean I would need to extract a piece, send it, get it back and put it back in

The 2 Gb limit is not a problem. It's just an unusual scenario