Re: Databases are acting wierd
John Vinson
<justl...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I have a bunch of databases on a server (windows 2003 server), when I copy a
>UI to a persons desktop (Windows XP), it doesn't take long for this to become
>corrupt. I have this happening on several machines, but none of them are
>acting the same. For example, it seems that one started acting like a copy
>from 2003-another one would not recognize fields-another one would just act
>like there was not a valid path to the info...I don't understand why this is
>happening....does someone have som input?
Check out the suggestions and links at Tony Toews' site:
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corruptmdbs.htm
Access is VERY sensitive to network noise; you may want to run some
diagnostics on your network, or on the NIC's of those machines which
seem to be most vulnerable.
John W. Vinson[MVP]
Jerry Whittle
following page:
http://www.rogersaccesslibrary.com/OtherLibraries.asp
Some WAGs.
They have their network mappings different. Your Q drive could be their S
drive.
They don't have the proper permissions to read, write, create and delete on
the network folder holding the database.
They don't have the same references set on their computer as yours.
Your network has some hardware problems. It could be a switch, router, or
even a network card throwing out bad packets. This doesn't even have to be on
a computer using the database. Your network people need to use a sniffer to
find bad packets and fix the problem.
--
Jerry Whittle
Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.
Ron Hinds
adapters? These can cause Access corruptions.
"justlearnin" <justl...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E420808-2821-45BF...@microsoft.com...
aaron...@gmail.com
ACCESS IS NETWORK NOISE
MDB isn't reliable enough to store a single record reliably
you should use Access Data Projects; with a free SQL Server-lite engine
called MSDE
if you care enough to be storing data; use a real database ENGINE.
File-File-- Client to Client.. is bullshit
using a Frontend-Frontend like Microsoft Access linked MDB files; is
the most ridiculous strategy ever
grow up kids and use SQL
TC
aaron...@gmail.com wrote:
> MDB isn't reliable enough to store a single record reliably
Hey Einstein, you'd better tell these people!
- The old Jet team, who had benchmark databases containing up to 4
million records:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/69901d5e47a7ff14?hl=en&
- Michael Kaplan, whose site "is entirely database driven, gets up to a
half million hits a month, and runs off a couple of Jet 4.0 databases":
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.access.internet/msg/e7dc17a1da71dc4f?hl=en&
- The hundreds or thousands of other developers with Acces/Jet
databases happily storing thousands or millions of records for years at
a time without any problems.
TC
aaron...@gmail.com
records in MDB
it's just the point of the matter that i've been there and i've seen
this; and i say it's not reliable enough for a single record
i mean-- how much time do you spend
a) refreshing
b) relinking
c) updating queries on the front end
d) troubleshooting locking problems
e) copying and pasting and waiting for HUGE files to be cut and paste
in windows
f) not having reliable backups of your database
g) not having real security
h) having to rewrite a dozen queries because access gets in a tiff
i just know that there are bigger, better things going on than silly
MDB and you guys are ridiculous for clinging to an obsolete database
aaron...@gmail.com
ANY NETWORK-- IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOY MDB
FRONTEND/FRONTEND OVER _ANY_ NETWORK
it just runs too slow
dont' do anything with mdb over a network
you'll save yourself a ton of grief
aaron...@gmail.com
ACCESS _IS_ THE NETWORK NOISE
TC
aaron...@gmail.com wrote:
> yes; i have worked on a hundred applications with over a million records in MDB
So let me get this clear - because I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
You've written *A HUNDED APPLICATIONS*, each storing *OVER A MILLION
RECORDS*, in a product that you repeatedly say is *CRAP*, and can not
store a *SINGLE RECORD* safely?
Is that right? Do I have that correct?
TC
aaron...@gmail.com
I have written a lot of Access applications; and im sick and friggin
tired of performance / stability / security problems
i mean-- after being kneedeep in MDB for years and years and years; i
proclaim that MDB is dead, obsolete
and MS is on crack for keeping it alive.
MS needs to focus their efforts on SQL; because it's obvious that MDB
isn't reliable enough for a single goddamn thing; and it's detracting
from SQL Server.
Do we really need 9 different databases coming out of redmond?
SQL Server won the war and you idiots are too drunk to notice
Tony Toews
>I have a bunch of databases on a server (windows 2003 server), when I copy a
>UI to a persons desktop (Windows XP), it doesn't take long for this to become
>corrupt. I have this happening on several machines, but none of them are
>acting the same. For example, it seems that one started acting like a copy
>from 2003-another one would not recognize fields-another one would just act
>like there was not a valid path to the info...I don't understand why this is
>happening....does someone have som input?
To add to the others suggestions. You have at least two separate
problems here.
"another one would just act like there was not a valid path to the
info.." As Jerry points out this one is due to network drives not
setup properly.
As far as the other problems
" copy a UI to a persons desktop ... become corrupt"
"one started acting like a copy from 2003"
and
"another one would not recognize fields".
What do you mean by UI? Are you coping the front end MDB to their
desktop?
Please give us more details as to exactly what is happening. A
paragraph or so describing each would be great.
Thanks, 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
TC
> i mean-- how much time do you spend:
> a) refreshing
What does that mean?
> b) relinking
I spend /zero/ time relinking. My code does that automatically, when
(and only when) required.
> c) updating queries on the front end
I spend /zero/ time updating queries, except when I want to enhance or
change their SQL.
> d) troubleshooting locking problems
I'll happily admit that most of my databases do not have enough
concurrent users, to have many locking problems. But locking problems
can occur in any multi-user database with a high concurrent user count.
You simply have to code for those problems.
> e) copying and pasting and waiting for HUGE files to be cut and paste in windows
What is that to do with Access?
> f) not having reliable backups of your database
Jet does not support hot backups. If you ignore that fact, you're
backups won't work. If you obey it, they will. No-one else complains of
never being able to get a good backup.
> g) not having real security
Horses for courses. My front door key will not keep out the CIA. Does
that mean that front door keys are "crap"?
> h) having to rewrite a dozen queries because access gets in a tiff
I spend /zero/ time rewriting queries for that reason.
Aaron, the reason I get into you, is that you spout all this stuff
about Access, but you do not provide the slightest evidence to back it
up. In my opinion, you probably just don't know how to use the product
effectively. This is evidenced by some of your previous comments - for
example, your problems managing nullable numeric fields. That was a
beginners problem - it did not suggest much knowledge on your part.
I say you should stop bad-mouthing the product, until you learn how to
use it effectively.
TC