>First of all, we should be pretty upfront about computer technology: its always changing and usually not to something new.
>
>What I mean is just about everything we deal with is at some point in a cycle. We've gone through the cycle of Centralized and Distributed computing several times very recently. We've gone through the cycle of Open Source to Proprietary and now it looks like we might be going back to Open Source for bit, of course only to go back to Proprietary at some later date.
>
>What about database technology? Server-based databases have done quite a bit for databases in the climate of PC hardware and software during the 90's. But does it still have the edge? Will file-based databases come back?
>
>I think so.
>
>Perhaps only for the reason that they'll be far more portable than there service-style counterparts; perhaps even more reasons exist. I think the maintance and creation of file databases is also far simpler than server based data. And the other interesting fact is if you have a file based database, which is just some file manipulating code, you could easily build a server ontop of that. Meaning that file databases can be File based or Server based. Server based can only be server based.
>
>I know "live backups" is used as a good reason to use something like SQL Server over something like VFP DBFs but my applications run all on DBFs and I can back them up live. I just use DyanZip to zip up the data directory while processes are running on it and it seems to work just fine. Security? Secure the file system and your file based database is secure. Its really quite simple.
>
>So, will be go back to file-based data stores? Let me know what you think, and why one paradigm has an advantage over another.

Mike;

In general I think the back end used should depend upon the needs of the user. File server can do a good job in many cases. Marketing also helps to determine the importance of a database. If it is Oracle expect to pay through the nose. You may not get what you paid for (i.e. California), but you will get a big bill!

Inherently there is more security in a backend like Oracle or SQL Server, etc. as opposed to a file based system. I have seen SQL Server crash and burn, although it is rare. We had to rebuild the database and restore the data. Each minute of down time costs our plant $36,000. Scalability is good with a backend, as we have many servers and client machines within the 6 million square feet of our plant.

I keep returning to user needs and marketing. The user can easily be convinced they need more than is truly required regardless of the reality of the situation. As far as recommendations to a client, I would never suggest something that would jeopardize a client’s data. Client data is more important then the tool used to create an application that is tied to it.

By the way the database that gave me the most trouble (not reliable) was Sybase. Although I have not used it for about 5 years, I still remember the serious problems and resultant legal issues (missing data) we had. Sybase was not interested in resolving those issues. Perhaps they have since changed their mind.

Tom