Connecting two back end Databases

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

Yes, I was able to see it via that link - odd. I switched over to Access
Monster a while back because the Microsoft Forum route was horribly
unreliable for me - locking up all the time or extremely slow.

However, that page doesn't really give any details on the specifics of the
corruption problems that you can have when sharing FEs, basically just says
'don't do it', along with some things about bandwidth. Bandwidth is no
concern at all, from what I can tell - since they're running on a terminal
server, at least as I understand it, there is no application data
transmission over the network. Everything is done on the server, other than
the data presentation. Like I said, we've never had any problems at all,
performance-related or otherwise, other than the standard ones you get when
running any app via the internet. Not saying I don't believe there are
potential corruption problems, mind you, just that that particlular link
doesn't really get into that in any detail at all. I'll search around a
little more. Just curious to see what can happen, if there are specific
things that can cause corruption, etc.

Do you know of any specifc examples of what this corruption does to the appl,
how it manifests itself, etc.? Can it end up corrupting the data? Obviously
the data would be the biggest concern by far. I install new versions fairly
frequently (typically a minimum of once a week). I also take frequent BE
backups as well.

did you try limiting the earlier search by including "Kallal" in the search
string?

It may have something to do with AccessMonster. My original post was via
that interface as well, and the hyperlink didn't show up in that either.
When I posted from the microsoft.com/office/community/... it seemed to post
OK.

Can you see the hyperlink if you go to:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...n-us&mid=d73c480b-5cce-42f8-8f1f-d90aa0d09aff

----
HTH
Dale

For some reason that link is not appearing for me. I just see a blank line.
Maybe another vista bug? (Just went to a new laptop with vista recently -

[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]

 

[Dale Fye]

Jim,

It was one of the first things I was advised when I started developing
multi-user databases, so I have actually never encountered the problem.

I think this thread has gotten too long to interest the experts on that.

I'd create a new thread "Shared front-end corruption" (or something like
that) and repost your question to that. I would expect responses from
Kallal, Toews, Steele, Browne, and maybe some of the other MVPs to a subject
like that.

----
HTH
Dale

Yes, I was able to see it via that link - odd. I switched over to Access
Monster a while back because the Microsoft Forum route was horribly
unreliable for me - locking up all the time or extremely slow.

However, that page doesn't really give any details on the specifics of the
corruption problems that you can have when sharing FEs, basically just says
'don't do it', along with some things about bandwidth. Bandwidth is no
concern at all, from what I can tell - since they're running on a terminal
server, at least as I understand it, there is no application data
transmission over the network. Everything is done on the server, other than
the data presentation. Like I said, we've never had any problems at all,
performance-related or otherwise, other than the standard ones you get when
running any app via the internet. Not saying I don't believe there are
potential corruption problems, mind you, just that that particlular link
doesn't really get into that in any detail at all. I'll search around a
little more. Just curious to see what can happen, if there are specific
things that can cause corruption, etc.

Do you know of any specifc examples of what this corruption does to the appl,
how it manifests itself, etc.? Can it end up corrupting the data? Obviously
the data would be the biggest concern by far. I install new versions fairly
frequently (typically a minimum of once a week). I also take frequent BE
backups as well.

did you try limiting the earlier search by including "Kallal" in the search
string?

It may have something to do with AccessMonster. My original post was via
that interface as well, and the hyperlink didn't show up in that either.
When I posted from the microsoft.com/office/community/... it seemed to post
OK.

Can you see the hyperlink if you go to:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...n-us&mid=d73c480b-5cce-42f8-8f1f-d90aa0d09aff

----
HTH
Dale

For some reason that link is not appearing for me. I just see a blank line.
Maybe another vista bug? (Just went to a new laptop with vista recently -

[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]

Thanks,

 

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

That exact thought crossed my mind after I did my last post - probably should
just open a new thread rather than 'hijacking' this one. Thanks for your
input.

Jim,

It was one of the first things I was advised when I started developing
multi-user databases, so I have actually never encountered the problem.

I think this thread has gotten too long to interest the experts on that.

I'd create a new thread "Shared front-end corruption" (or something like
that) and repost your question to that. I would expect responses from
Kallal, Toews, Steele, Browne, and maybe some of the other MVPs to a subject
like that.

----
HTH
Dale

Yes, I was able to see it via that link - odd. I switched over to Access
Monster a while back because the Microsoft Forum route was horribly

[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]

 

[Thorson]

My understanding was that Dale was correct in his statement that each users
should have their own copy of the Front End. We have not come up with a
solution yet, but I think that Jet Replication is the best idea, since I am
new to access and it appears to be fairly complicated we may wait a while or
hire someone with more experience for this particular task.

Thanks for your help!
--
Thorson

Bad idea Jim.

It is NEVER a good idea to have multiple users using the same front end! Now,
if you mean give each user a copy of the front end on the server, and use
Terminal Server, then I'm in agreement.

Dale

Is there a reason why each user needs a separate copy of the front end? It
sounds like they're all using the same back end. If your back end is already
on a terminal server, it seems like you could just put the front end on the
server and have them log on to the server and run the appl there. It seems to
me that your main performance problem results from havng to send data over
the network. By running on the server this wouldn't be a problem. This might
require some work for setting up IDs and permissions on the server, etc., but
other than that it seems like it would be the best way to go. Maybe there's
an issue with your appl that I'm not aware of. We use terminal server and we
have the users log on to the server and run the appl there. It makes for very
easy distibution of new versions and there are no performance problems,
though our users have fairly fast connections.

I currently have a database that is being used by a handful of users. The
database Back End is located on the Network while the front end is on the

[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]

Thanks,

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

I have a couple of ... "problem children"

Ahh, such a polite term. Reminds me of the idiot I encountered today
who, while driving faster than most people on the highway insisted on
staying in the left hand lane for at least 100 kms. I was behind him
all the way as the chrome on his tail flaps was blinking at me.

who never respond when I
announce a new version of the front end, so I can put it on their
computers, and insist on using the front end located on the network.

I specifically created the Auto FE Updater utility so that I could
make changes to the FE MDE as often as I wanted and be quite confident
that the next time someone went to run the app that it would pull in
the latest version. For more info on the errors or the Auto FE
Updater utility see the free Auto FE Updater utility at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm at my website to keep the
FE on each PC up to date.

Tony