Re: Is Access Stable???
Van T. Dinh
who may not be as experienced as you?
Just for the records, some regular respondents have reported databases with
50 + users (20 + are constantly on the database) that work fine without any
problem. OTOH, bad database design & implementation lead to all sorts of
problems even for one user.
--
HTH
Van T. Dinh
MVP (Access)
"bladelock" <blad...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B506C57-9C84-424E...@microsoft.com...
>I was told that anytime a create a database for more than 15 users, Access
>is
> no good becuase it become unstable and corrupts data. They told me to use
> "sequel" Where can I find how good access ready is? I've been using it for
> 5
> years, and never had a problem. Does anyone have feedback?
Ron Hinds
news:8B506C57-9C84-424E...@microsoft.com...
> I was told that anytime a create a database for more than 15 users, Access
is
> no good becuase it become unstable and corrupts data. They told me to use
> "sequel" Where can I find how good access ready is? I've been using it for
5
> years, and never had a problem. Does anyone have feedback?
It all depends on how good your code is. I had one with multiple back-end
databases several hundred MB in size and 40-50 front-end users. It finally
became a performance issue and I had to move the back-end to "sequel" (i.e.
Microsoft SQL Server). Access should be easily able to handle 15 users. I
can tell you that migrating your app to SQL Server is no walk in the park!
'69 Camaro
is
> no good becuase it become unstable and corrupts data.
Access in the hands of an expert database developer is very stable and far
cheaper than any equivalently functioning alternative. Access in the hands
of novice usually leads to numerous problems, and can become an utter
disaster. The Microsoft Access development team has admitted that the most
common cause for database corruption is sharing of a multiuser database file.
Novices build an Access database for their own use and then later share it
on the network -- without even considering splitting it into a front end and
back end or networking issues. They have huge performance hits, because the
database was pretty fast on the user's local machine so many required
database application development techniques were ignored, like normalization,
primary keys and indexes. And when the database curruption starts they blame
Access, not the lack of skills of the developer.
> I've been using it for 5
> years, and never had a problem.
That's because you've been doing many things correctly, whereas these
naysayers haven't. They don't know how to avoid problems which, admittedly,
takes some experience.
If a multiuser database is designed correctly with a split front end and
back end, all users are given Windows "Full control" security permissions on
the network shared directory, and all users are only reading the records,
instead of inserting, updating and deleting records, then the database could
handle more than 100 concurrent users. (The actual limit is 255, but it's
pretty hard to get close to that number.) However, real life doesn't give us
such an ideal scenario.
The number of concurrent users will be limited to the amount of network
traffic and the amount of record lock contention. The record lock contention
can be controlled to some degree by the efficiency of the database design and
database application design. This is where experienced Access database
developers are worth their weight in gold, because they can often create a
fairly robust database system with Access, instead of creating a much more
expensive database system with SQL Server, Oracle, or another RDBMS.
So, the limit on concurrent users depends upon the needs of the database
application, the amount of record lock contention, the network and how it
handles traffic, and the expertise of the database developer. This limit
could be from one user to 30 or more concurrent users in a reliable Access
database system, depending upon all of these factors.
HTH.
Gunny
See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.
(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address so that a message will
be forwarded to me.)
- - -
If my answer has helped you, please sign in and answer yes to the question
"Did this post answer your question?" at the bottom of the message, which
adds your question and the answers to the database of answers. Remember that
questions answered the quickest are often from those who have a history of
rewarding the contributors who have taken the time to answer questions
correctly.
aaron...@gmail.com
in a MDB without problems.
I jsut think that MDB is about as irrelevent as XLS-- it's not a real
db and if you're going to build it from scratch-- do it as an ACCESS
DATA PROJECT.
Migrating your app to SQL __IS__ a walk in the park; because you dont
have to run around dealing with this kinda bullshit:
a) awful performance- across a network especially
b) versioning hell whenever you change a query
c) inability to take good backups of your data (people leave it open at
night for example)
d) mdb queries SUCK-- MDB queries just randomly crap out when you start
stacking them on top of each other
e) bloat - waiting for a 200mb file to copy across the network; and
copying it 15 times.. you'd be much better off with SQL
Joseph Meehan
>i think that you guys are crazy; i haven't ever had more than 10 users
> in a MDB without problems.
Maybe you just did not set it up correctly or had a poor LAN. Who
knows. I had a bout 15-30 people on it and it worked fine.
>
> I jsut think that MDB is about as irrelevent as XLS-- it's not a real
> db and if you're going to build it from scratch-- do it as an ACCESS
> DATA PROJECT.
>
> Migrating your app to SQL __IS__ a walk in the park; because you dont
> have to run around dealing with this kinda bullshit:
>
> a) awful performance- across a network especially
> b) versioning hell whenever you change a query
> c) inability to take good backups of your data (people leave it open
> at night for example)
> d) mdb queries SUCK-- MDB queries just randomly crap out when you
> start stacking them on top of each other
> e) bloat - waiting for a 200mb file to copy across the network; and
> copying it 15 times.. you'd be much better off with SQL
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Joseph Meehan
>I was told that anytime a create a database for more than 15 users,
> Access is no good becuase it become unstable and corrupts data. They
> told me to use "sequel" Where can I find how good access ready is?
> I've been using it for 5 years, and never had a problem. Does anyone
> have feedback?
It depends on many factors, but many of us, myself included have had
more than 15 users without a problem. I would have to guess that common
problems are poor design and a marginal LAN.
aaron...@gmail.com
i have had numerous problems with even 3 or 5 users against an MDB. a
small MDB; 50mb.
i've been at a dozen different clients with 100 MDB files and i dont
believe that it is the right architecture for anyone for any reason.
it's slow, not stable, and it's not secure
i mean.. do you guys have any fucking clue how bad the
spyware/malware/adware problem is?
and you guys just sit around with your pants down; chilling; keeping
your confidential information in a database thats, what... IMPOSSIBLE
to secure? (MDB)
with SQL Server you at least have SOME protection.
I know what im doing; thanks for trying to attack me.
just because i think that you guys are all full of shit and MDB is for
babies-- that doesn't mean im a newbie.
thanks anyways.
ACCESS DATA PROJECTS rock. anyone that tells you otherwise is too
stupid to learn SQL Server.
Tony Toews
>I was told that anytime a create a database for more than 15 users, Access is
>no good becuase it become unstable and corrupts data. They told me to use
>"sequel" Where can I find how good access ready is? I've been using it for 5
>years, and never had a problem. Does anyone have feedback?
IMNSHO developers are seldom the cause of corruptions. Sharing the FE
or the combined MDB in A2000 and newer is high as a cause. In the
past OpLocks was definitely a cause but the SPs have been out long
enough that this cause has significantly decreased. Intermittently
flaky hardware is also a cause.
Yes, SQL Server is a solution. However it can be expensive and
increase the time to create a solution. Also many IT departments won't
allow you access to their SQL Server systems without using their own
staff. Which is somewhat understandable at times but obviously can be
a pain.
I have a former client running 25 users all day long on the MDB. That
said only ten of them are actually doing updates.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Joseph Meehan
>i dont agree with your diagnosis.
>
> i have had numerous problems with even 3 or 5 users against an MDB. a
> small MDB; 50mb.
>
> i've been at a dozen different clients with 100 MDB files and i dont
> believe that it is the right architecture for anyone for any reason.
>
> it's slow, not stable, and it's not secure
I am sorry to hear your attempts have not worked well for you
I have not had any problems that could not be resolved, nor has the
system security been breached. No finished product was ever slow (Let me
take that back, one package provided by a vender ran like molasses in
January) and very little issues with stability, and they were taken care of
with some minor adjustments.
>
> i mean.. do you guys have any fucking clue how bad the
> spyware/malware/adware problem is?
Sure. I would believe most of us are careful. Have you been having
problems?
>
> and you guys just sit around with your pants down; chilling; keeping
> your confidential information in a database thats, what... IMPOSSIBLE
> to secure? (MDB)
>
> with SQL Server you at least have SOME protection.
>
> I know what im doing; thanks for trying to attack me.
> just because i think that you guys are all full of shit and MDB is for
> babies-- that doesn't mean im a newbie.
>
> thanks anyways.
>
> ACCESS DATA PROJECTS rock. anyone that tells you otherwise is too
> stupid to learn SQL Server.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
aaron...@gmail.com
but you sit out there with unsecured data and just hope.
I've worked on a LOT of heavy-user systems. And it has just left me
with a bad taste in my mouth. If you're implying that 'everything is
peachy now in access 2003'
THEN YOU NEED TO TELL THOSE ASSHOLES IN REDMOND TO FIX IT IN ACCESS
2000. FIX IT IN ACCESS 2002.
I dont think that FREE is too expensive for anything. MSDE is FREE.
Every person in the world should have their own copy of MSDE on the
desktop; and when apps get to be completed; you move them to the
network.
no more spreadsheet dorks.
no more mdb-kiddies.
AND NO MORE CRYSTAL REPORTS.
ADP are the best platforms in the world. SQL Server doesn't just
'flake out' like MDB does
and just for the record.. NO.. I DONT THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ANY
COMPREHENSION HOW BAD THE SPYWARE / MALWARE / ADWARE PROBLEM IS.
I worked at the worlds most successful software company for almost a
year; i was working for the worlds largest antivirus vendor.
AND WE HAD 5,000 OUTBREAKS PER QUARTER????
i mean-- 5,000 times we had people sniffing around; capturing
passwords; trojan this; sniffer that.. i mean.. HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS
OF VARIANTS PER DAY.
And you guys just leave your data unprotected.
It's called UNFUCKINGRESPONSIBLE
Access MDB security is a joke. with SQL you've got SOME protection.
With MDB-- i mean.. what, do you guys honestly store your credit card
transactions in MDB?
Because I dont think that there is a BIT of difference between a credit
card transaction and a marketing db that has peoples' emails.
It's all CONFIDENTIAL information.
AREN'T YOU GUYS TIRED OF:
a) data corruption
b) crap performance-- screw mdb with a fork
c) linking, refreshing
d) DSNs
with ADP; you have a single connection to a single database; and it's
friggin BEAUTIFUL.
you dont have to ask people to leave the app in order to do EVERY
LITTLE THING
i mean--- MDB was obsolete 10 years ago. I'm sorry that you guys don't
make a decent enough wage to get an EDUCATION.
TAKE SOME SQL CLASSES AND GET IT DONE.
MDB is a waste of time; a disease. it's a crutch.
Joseph Meehan
Right, I don't think it has been. I have some good reasons for thinking
that but you will just have to take my word for it.
BTW I don't need ALL CAPS. I can read proper case just fine, as must
people can.
Thanks for listening and offering your suggestions and opinions.
David S via AccessMonster.com
Joseph. It's been evident ever since he started posting that Aaron has been
blinded by his own opinions and completely lacks the ability to communicate
or debate at a ssensible level. I would not contemplate engaging or employing
anyone with his style of communication, and am saddened that there are people
who are sufficiently blinded by his bravado to pay him money for what he does.
--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access/200511/1
aaron...@gmail.com
you think that im too blinded by my own opinions?
im sorry that i haven't been brainwashed into accepting this MDB
mediocrity
i mean-- the program is CRAP and you guys have been spoonfed crap for
so long you dont have any concept that there is an easier way.
go and play with spreadsheets and aol until 2090-- maybe MDB will be
back in fashion by then lol-- see if i care
there is a better way; it is called MSDE / ADP
-aaron
aaron...@gmail.com
that's the funny part.. i can't communicate my way out of a paper bag
lol
at least i dont still use training wheels
David S via AccessMonster.com
Actually, you communicate your opinions very well; it's just that you
ridicule and insult other opinions, thereby devaluing your own amongst the
wider section of the community. Mounting personal attacks against others is a
lousy way to convince other peopel you're right, although if you care more
about being right than helping people, no doubt it makes you feel better.
I'm curious as to why you even bother to hang out in this newsgroup, since
all your stock answer for everything is "use ADP". I would have thought that
it was self evident that people posting here are looking for advice more
useful to their immedaite situation. You might as well say "use Java" or "use
C#" - it might be a nice thing to do in the longer term, but the effort
involved in redeveloping everything that's already working is hard to justify
to anybody who values the end application over the technology used to achieve
it...
Tony Toews
Now this is interesting. I see your reply but I don't see the posting
to which you are replying.
aaron...@gmail.com
i have written tools to automate the heck out of it.. i mean.. in the
end it all comes down to automating the creation of views and sprocs..
everythign else is pretty straightforward
i just think that more people should give it a shot.. especially DAPs.
i mean.. DAPs against SQL Server are really really easy to setup if you
use an ADP.
and the bottom line is that if you keep your data in a ADP you can
safely cross the 2gb limit; and you can start having really exciting
applications.
i'd like to see some professional grade ADP apps come out.. i mean--
who wants to help me rewrite quickbooks as an ADP for example??
i just know that all of these tedium that you guys get so caught up
on-- it would all be so much easier if you really gave ADP a fair
shake.
and it's a shame that you guys haven't picked up on this already.. i
mean.. it's been 5 years, right?
i've built dozens of complex ADP. i've built IDS, EIS, ERP, CRM.. i've
built financial apps up the ying-yang.
i just think that ADP is a much much much stronger option that MDB. i
mean.. UDFs.. being able to write UDFs in SQL Server is like the most
revolutionary thing in the world.
sure it's similiar in MDB. but it's much better in ADP.
i just think that you guys are crazy for still worrying about stuff
like link this; and spt-- that's sql passthrough that.. and connection
string this.. reports that take 2 minutes to run..
i mean.. none of this crap-- none of it-- is in ADP.
you dont have queries that 'just crap out' like you do in MDB.
it just boggles my mind that you guys haven't seen the light.
sprocs and views are more powerful than MDB.
sure-- MDB is really really nice for a lot of things-- but anything
that just involves shipping around a couple of ADO commands; anything
that just involves simple bound forms and reports---
you guys would be much better off in ADP.
and if you have a bug in ADP-- email me about it; and i'll hound the
shit out of microsoft to get it fixed.
because im that guy.
i want ADP to succeed.
I wouldn't be making $60/hour right now if it wasn't for ADP. I am
officially a SQL Server badass.
I would be an Access developer, struggling to make $30/hour.
AND MY SKILLSET FROM MDB CARRIED OVER DIRECTLY TO ADP.
I mean-- it's a real natual progression. Analysis Services-- I mean..
come on.. it's like the best stuff ever invented.
Do you really want to do OLAP against MDB?
I mean.. seriously-- what happens when you get more than 100k rows and
it starts taking 10 minutes to do anything..
I mean seriously here kids
SQL Server is a step in the right direction.
Giving your QUERIES the scalability and performance of SQL Server.. I
mean.. it's a no-brainer.
Especially because it's free for 2 processors with MSDE. Right?
It's free to 2gb space-- just like MDB.. and it's MUCH easier to link
between databases in SQL Server than in MDB. I mean.. it doesn't take
ANY configuation.
I just wish you guys the best of luck.
I've been travelling the world making mad money.. I've got jobs coming
out of my ears-- I mean.. this market is wonderful; isn't it?
It just boggles my mind.
I see SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many Access developers making $20/hour
wondering what direction the sun is going to rise from tomorrow.
The day has come; drop everythign you're doing in MDB and start doing
it in ADP.
I mean-- the sproc designer tools in ADP-- it's just BEAUTIFUL compared
to MDB.
I just wish that you guys would willingly open your eyes and give it a
test run..
shit, give it 6 months of your life.
and you won't ever look back.
It's just a much much much simpler existence than dealing with DSN this
and named instance this; and DAO this.. and reports that take 2 minutes
to run.
Aren't you guys tired of that?
Don't you think that your clients are tired of that??
AT @comcastdotnet Tom Wickerath
I noticed the same thing when reading this thread using the Microsoft web
portal:
However, the entire thread is available at Google Groups:
According to a person in the know, who sent me a private e-mail message, 43
of Aaron's messages that he has posted since 10/24 have been purged from
Microsoft's news server. This is no doubt due to the foul language that he
continues to use in nearly every post. Did you catch the abusive reply that
he made to me the other day? Here is a link to that thread:
I'm surprised he attacked me with such vigor. After all, I did not say
anything bad about Data Access Pages. I simply stated that I don't tend to
use them. Oh well. I noticed that Aaron has not replied back to that thread
with any advice for the OP. He's Mr. DAP expert, but when it comes to
actually helping someone out, there's no substance behind all the hot air.
Tom
______________________________________________
davros via AccessMonster.com
daily. It was central to the company's sales operations. It was a 100million
(UK pounds) turnover company. At the end of my time there - we regularly went
6 months between mdb corruptions. Even then they only took 20minutes to fix !
5 years prior to that we were on v2.0 and getting daily corruptions. Sure the
product got better, but so did our understanding and use of it. The
reliability we achieved in the end was by design - our design, a design we
learned by applying common-sense to the day to day issues we faced. Trashing
a product - as some have done in this thread, merely shows ignorance as to
what can be achieved with the right attitude.
Those who say something cannot be done are likely to be interrupted by the
sound of somebody doing it !
Tony Toews
>i dont agree with your diagnosis.
>
>i have had numerous problems with even 3 or 5 users against an MDB. a
>small MDB; 50mb.
Ah, so a carpenter blames his tools?
>i've been at a dozen different clients with 100 MDB files and i dont
>believe that it is the right architecture for anyone for any reason.
>it's slow, not stable,
Rubbish.
>and it's not secure
So what. Most people don't need secur.
>i mean.. do you guys have any fucking clue how bad the
>spyware/malware/adware problem is?
>
>and you guys just sit around with your pants down; chilling; keeping
>your confidential information in a database thats, what... IMPOSSIBLE
>to secure? (MDB)
And if the data is not worth securing?
>I know what im doing; thanks for trying to attack me.
We're just disagreeing.
>just because i think that you guys are all full of sh*t and MDB is for
>babies-- that doesn't mean im a newbie.
You're the person who is insulting the rest of us.
>ACCESS DATA PROJECTS rock. anyone that tells you otherwise is too
>stupid to learn SQL Server.
ADPs have their problems and quirks too.
Tony Toews
>i think that you guys are crazy; i haven't ever had more than 10 users
>in a MDB without problems.
Then maybe it's your network.
>I jsut think that MDB is about as irrelevent as XLS-- it's not a real
>db and if you're going to build it from scratch-- do it as an ACCESS
>DATA PROJECT.
Or use linked tables and linked views.
>Migrating your app to SQL __IS__ a walk in the park; because you dont
>have to run around dealing with this kinda bullsh*t:
No, migrating an app to SQL Server can be a fair bit of work.
>a) awful performance- across a network especially
Wrong
>b) versioning hell whenever you change a query
Very seldom I ever change a query without having to change a form or report.
>c) inability to take good backups of your data (people leave it open at
>night for example)
There are solutions to that. You can kick people out after an hour of inactivity.
HOW TO: Detect User Idle Time or Inactivity in Access 2000 (Q210297)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=210297
ACC: How to Detect User Idle Time or Inactivity (Q128814)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=128814
>d) mdb queries SUCK-- MDB queries just randomly crap out when you start
>stacking them on top of each other
The few times I've had that problem they were getting very ugly.
>e) bloat - waiting for a 200mb file to copy across the network; and
>copying it 15 times.. you'd be much better off with SQL
Why would you be copying a 200 mb file across the network 15 times? Sure Access is
inefficient when it comes to moving data across a network but it certainly doesn't
copy the entire MDB across the network. Unless, of course, you haven't indexed your
tables properly. Which you should be doing in SQL Server anyhow.
Tony Toews
>MDB is a waste of time; a disease. it's a crutch.
Please repost without the foul language and I'll be happy to respond.
aaron...@gmail.com
decent performance??
hahahahahahhaha
what are you guys trying to sell
i mean-- MDB across ANY network is an abuse of end users.
Reports shoudln't take 2 minutes to run. Having _ANYTHING_ run across
a network in MDB slows things down by a factor of about 3.
IN MY OPINION THAT IS CALLED A BUG AND THEY RELEASED A PATCH FOR THIS 5
YEARS AGO. THIS PATCH IS CALLED ADP.
Tom
When someone asks for help with DAPs and you dont know anyhting about
DAPs -- THEN KEEP YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT ASSHOLE
You guys run around and squash innovation all the time
IM NOT THE MONKEY THAT IS RUNNING AROUND SAYING
'USE ADP'
'USE ADP'
'USE ADP'
'USE ADP'
'USE ADP'
'USE ADP'
You guys are the idiots that are running around saying
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
'USE MDB'
When you guys stop being BIGOTs and RACISTs then maybe i'll stop
fighting this holy war.
And Tony-- just for the record
I'LL FUCKING SWEAR WHEREEVER AND WHENEVER I WANT TO.
I'M SORRY THAT YOUR MOTHER DRESSES YOU FUNNY. I'M SORRY THAT YOU GUYS
ALL BUTT-DOUCHE WITH MDB
MDB IS ABOUT AS GAY AND OBSOLETE AS YOU CAN GET.
aaron...@gmail.com
MICROSOFT DOESN'T CENSOR ME FOR POOR LANGUAGE
THEY ##CENSOR## ME BECAUSE I SPEAK THE TRUTH.
HOW MANY FAT LAZY MICROSOFT PRODUCT MANAGERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A
LIGHTBULB??
Wait a second.. just give me a second.. I'm just waiting for the mdb to
open to give me the answer
Tony Toews
>And Tony-- just for the record
Aaron
All you've done is ensure your opinion will be ignored.
aaron...@gmail.com
come on Tony.. do you work for the evil empire?
always trying to pass the buck onto someone else??
NOTHING IS WRONG WITH MY NETWORK I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING
YOU SEE-- I'M NOT A MDB-KIDDIE THAT IS STUCK IN 1997.. I HAVE
PROGRESSED INTO SQL SERVER AND I'M QUITE STRONG WITH WINDOWS AND
NETWORKING THANK YOU.
DONT TRY TO BLAME THIS ON THINGS OTHER THAN MDB.
MDB IS CRAP.
MDB HAS ALWAYS BEEN CRAP.
MDB WILL ALWAYS BE CRAP.
IM SO SORRY THAT YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO WRITE REAL SQL STATEMENTS TONY.
GROW UP AND STOP PICKING ON ME FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
IT'S A FREE COUNTRY. YOU CAN PLAY WITH YOUR MDBs ALL YOU WANT; LIKE A
LITTLE GIRLY-MAN
I MEAN WAKE UP KIDS
SQL SERVER SPROCS AND VIEWS ARE JUST BLATANTLY MORE POWERFUL THAN MDB
QUERIES.
I MEAN-- YOU DONT HAVE TO ALWAYS ACCOUNT FOR ACCESS FLAKINESS.
LIKE BEING ABLE TO TAKE A COLUMN IN ACCESS- IT IS CALLED EMPLOYEEID.
if it is a null value; you want it to be ZERO.
So what are your choices.. calling it 'EMPLOYEEIDNEW'
That is just stupid
the absolutely most stupid thing i've ever seen in my life.
I shoudl be able to take the column named EMPLOYEEID and add 1000000 TO
IT AND STILL CALL IT EMPLOYEEID.
I MEAN-- AREN'T YOU TIRED OF GOING THROUGH AND REWRITING EVERYTHING
WHENEVER YOU CHANGE A COLUMN NAME IN A QUERY?
IN ADP YOU DONT HAVE THESE TYPES OF RIDICULOUS LIMITS.
David S via AccessMonster.com
>fighting this holy war.
juxtaposed with his later statement:
>MDB IS ABOUT AS GAY AND OBSOLETE AS YOU CAN GET.
which sort of pretty clearly demonstrates Aaron's homophobic tendencies :)
Which is no surprise, really :)
So it sounds like Aaron is posting here because of ideological reasons rather
than out of a desire to help people with what they're actually trying to get
done - you're posting in the wrong place, mate :) If you want to recruit
people to your cause, there's must be more fruitful places than this bastion
of MSB-idity (and yes, I did just invent that word - just in case you hadn't
noticed)...
--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
David S via AccessMonster.com
Martians :)
aaron...@gmail.com
i want to help people from being stuck making $20/hour when there are
hundreds and thousands and millions of open sql server jobs.
you guys can liberate yourselfs from making $20/hour.
ANY mdb developer in the world is only worth $20/hour-- even if you've
got a big blue tattoo that says MVP
it's just too easy to find kids that will work for $10/hour that will
do a better job that you kids
Tony Toews
>you think that maybe it's my network?
Certainly a possibility.
<rest of posting snipped>
Tony Toews
>Did you catch the abusive reply that
>he made to me the other day? Here is a link to that thread:
I'm not quite sure I understand why someone would use such language in
a public area. In a bar fine.
>I'm surprised he attacked me with such vigor.
I've been a bit startled myself.
Tony Toews
>A while back I co-developed an Access97 database used heavily by 120 users
>daily. It was central to the company's sales operations. It was a 100million
>(UK pounds) turnover company. At the end of my time there - we regularly went
>6 months between mdb corruptions. Even then they only took 20minutes to fix !
>5 years prior to that we were on v2.0 and getting daily corruptions. Sure the
>product got better, but so did our understanding and use of it. The
>reliability we achieved in the end was by design - our design, a design we
>learned by applying common-sense to the day to day issues we faced. Trashing
>a product - as some have done in this thread, merely shows ignorance as to
>what can be achieved with the right attitude.
Interesting. I can't say I've seen any corruptions caused by bad
design so your experience is a bit different. Possibly there were
other factors such as flaky hardware that was retired? Or the
infamous OpLocks causing troubles?
What things did you do to reduce/eliminate corruptions?
David S via AccessMonster.com
>hundreds and thousands and millions of open sql server jobs.
Funnily enough, those aren't the people actually asking for help in this or
any other post; I guess it's an illustration of the sort of tangents that
these sorts of threads can wander off onto (apologies to the OP who has
probably completely lost interest in this by now)
Aaron, you'd make a good politician - 'cos if you were in it for the money,
you'd stay quiet and make sure that this market that supposedly exists wasn't
suddenly overwhelmed by all these former MS Access developers converting over
to DAPs - limited supply means you get higher demand. So you are clearly be
doing this for the ego trip it gives you. So what if you have to ignore all
common sense and logic? That would be a valuable asset in political life too :
)
>it's just too easy to find kids that will work for $10/hour that will
>do a better job that you kids
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys :) No wonder your code looks good in
contrast :) It's certainly an effective tactic - get someone else to write
complete cr*p so that your stuff looks good by comparison. You'd want to keep
employing those kids, because coming in afterwards to clean up must be the
only thing keeping you afloat :) Unfortunately, it's also cowboy behaviour
like this that gives the whole industry a bad name. I wouldn't let you join
the firefighters either, since you'd be the type to light 'em up and then
call it in so you could be the hero :P
And most people measure kids' adulthood by their level of emotional maturity,
in which case you've barely reached adolescence. I eagerly await your
demonstrating the truth of this to everyone :)
--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access/200511/1
David S via AccessMonster.com
>
>I've been a bit startled myself.
He sseems to attack everyone with such vigour - I've been impressed that he
can sustain the lengthy sort of rants that he does, since it takes a serious
level of emotional anger (not to mention an illogical paranoia) to keep on
spewing it out. Maybe that's just his life :) Rather than get angry at it,
why not put a couple of logs on the fire and enjoy the flames? :) This thread
is pretty cluttered with irrelevancies now anyway :) (apologies to the OP)
davros via AccessMonster.com
database approach. We established a deliberate policy of rigidly limiting
(with additional code and carefull query design) the number of records that
Access would try pass across the network. No more opening forms with multiple
records. We tried different techniques and monitored network traffic to see
the actual results. Reigning-in the Jet engine in this way proved to be so
effective in reducing net traffic that we shelved plans to convert to VB with
a SQL back-end. Corruption instances dropped like a stone - whilst overall
network responses improved. This more than made up for any extra time the
client took running the extra code. Attention to error handling aroung
locking also paid off too. As this company was an IT company - hardware was
pretty good - though we did get network issues and machine issues
occasionally. Once we achieved a certain level of db reliability - it became
apparent that these external issues were most often the root of the remaining
corruptions experienced.
Tony Toews wrote:
>>A while back I co-developed an Access97 database used heavily by 120 users
>>daily. It was central to the company's sales operations. It was a 100million
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>a product - as some have done in this thread, merely shows ignorance as to
>>what can be achieved with the right attitude.
>
>Interesting. I can't say I've seen any corruptions caused by bad
>design so your experience is a bit different. Possibly there were
>other factors such as flaky hardware that was retired? Or the
>infamous OpLocks causing troubles?
>
>What things did you do to reduce/eliminate corruptions?
>
>Tony
--