Advice needed: SQL Server vs MS Access (and fault tolerance)

Hello all,

my company uses a MS Access database (front-end/back-end). It holds clients' information and is small enough (back-end approx 30MB) and the biggest table will have about 20,000 records. We have 20 users in the main site and potentially 6 (usually 4) outside of the office.

Since a few months ago we have two remote offices accessing the database, but it's far too slow (ADSL link limited to 256kbps upload speed).

Apart from the obvious solution of replacing the internet lines with SDSL or Leased lines (which I would like to avoid because it represents an ongoing cost) I am considering other solutions.

I was planning on developing some web based front-end (intranet-style) to put less stress on the WAN links (access runs the queries in client side).

I was also thinking in migrating the database to SQL server (MSDE if possible, for obvious cost reasons), and benefit from the power of stored procedures. Still Access has some major advantages for me:
- No need for special tools to backup
- Very easy to add new functionalities, reports, etc
- Very easy to maintain (compact/repair, etc.)

We have 2 servers and the database will be in the the same machine that is running the web front-end therefore the processing of the queries will be done by the same server anyway. My first obvious question is:

- What should I use as BE database? Access or SQL server?

Apart from that, the database is vital to the organisation. Therefore I wanted to be able to have some fault-tolerance added to it (if possible without counting on clustering services).

My idea was to deploy the web front-end to both servers and use NLB. At the same time deploy the BE database to both servers (either access or SQL server). Set up the web servers to use one of the BE databases as priority. Should that fail to connect, try the database in the second server (I'll be writing the code, therefore I'll be in control of the process). Configure the BE databases for merged replication to occur every hour.

In the event of a failure in the second database server, no major problem.
In the event of a failure in the main DB server, changes would be commited to the backup server and merged back whenever the main server would be online.

If I've understood it properly, that setup should avoid potential data corruption, etc.

We are not a bank, therefore if the merging process is scheduled to occur every hour, we could loose a maximum of 1 hour work (which we can afford).

Does the whole scenario make sense?
Would replication work properly in MS Access?
would it be better to use mixed replication Access-SQL server?
How can you schedule replication in Access if that's the best way to go?

Thanks for any input.