Multiuser with 2007 does not work

[John Briley]

I have an Access 2003 database with about 20 users. Typically no more than three to five will be on at the same time. It is a replicated database with user lever security. It is a split database and all users using the same copy of the front end without problems.

We are switching to access 2007. I have the computers set to use the 2003 file format. If one user is on the copy of the database at a time things are slower than 2003 but usable. As soon as a second user logs on to the same copy the system becomes unusably slow.

I see where it says each user should have his own front end. Come on, 20 copies of the front end to maintain? Doesn't seem preactical.

If 2003 would run fine like this why won't 2007. What changed? The trusted sites thing does not help.

EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
WPF And The Model View View Model Pattern
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorial...b-7374d3da3425/wpf-and-the-model-view-vi.aspx

 

[Roger Carlson]

You don't maintain 20 front-ends. You maintain one master front-end and use
something like Tony Toews AutoFEUpdater to keep them in sync. Visit
http://www.autofeupdater.com/download.htm to download.


--
--Roger Carlson
MS Access MVP
Access Database Samples: www.rogersaccesslibrary.com
Want answers to your Access questions in your Email?
Free subscription:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=ACCESS-L

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

I have an Access 2003 database with about 20 users. Typically no more than
three to five will be on at the same time. It is a replicated database with
user lever security. It is a split database and all users using the same
copy of the front end without problems.

We are switching to access 2007. I have the computers set to use the 2003
file format. If one user is on the copy of the database at a time things
are slower than 2003 but usable. As soon as a second user logs on to the
same copy the system becomes unusably slow.

The above problem is usually fixed by a persistent connection. This is
common question here.

So, #1 is to try a persistent connection. This and other performance things
to check is outlined here:

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

I see where it says each user should have his own front end. Come on, 20
copies of the front end to maintain? Doesn't seem preactical.

How do you install 20 copies of word then?

How do you install 20 copies of Excel then?


Hint:
Ask you IT department for the last 20 years why they been installed software
on EACH COMPUTER? Really, go ask them?

Here is some answers you get:

* The software now does not have to travel across the network each time it
is used. It would be a waste of network resources if applications such as
word etc. had to be loaded across the network and use up precious network
bandwidth. Remember, networks are MUCH MUCH MUCH slower then your hard disk
to load files. Remember, the network is a SHARED resource. If you have two
users on the network pulling data, then you have ONE HALF the amount of
resources available. You must treat your network with the utmost respect, as
it is a delicate and precious (limited) resource. When you have 4 people on
the same network, you have FOUR TIMES LESS THE performance. You MUST thus be
very careful. Imagine how slow things would be if all users loaded their
software from the network each time?

* If one user makes a change to their printer setup or just a general change
to their settings, they have their OWN copy of the application to play with,
and NOT interfere with other users on the network. Can you imagine two users
fighting over how their excel sheet should be laid out at the same time!!

* If a user's software crashes, then no other users are affected. Can you
imagine if word were to freeze up, or lock on your computer and everyone
else in the building also experienced a freeze up or lock up? Again, it
makes sense to install the application part on each pc as to ISOLATE
individual’s problems that might occur in the application. So, installing
software on each PC is a MUST DO from a reliability point of view. You don't
want to allow ONE user's problem to become the problem of everyone else.

This is again why we split a database in ms-access in multi-user mode
(otherwise you will get NO reliability).

I could add MANY more reasons to the above list, but suffice to say that it
makes a lot of sense to install the software on each computer. I don’t think
there are too many people that have trouble understanding the above
concepts. I bet if you ask your IT department, they have FOR YEARS AND YEARS
been installing software on each computer.

Why would you not do the same?

However, when it comes to ms-access, the above concepts for some strange
reason are complete ignored. Users all of a sudden get some type of freeze
in the brain, and all of a sudden compete ignore how they deployed software
on their computers for that last 15 years!

You can use many different kinds of tools to create software with. These
tools like c++, VB, and yes even ms-access are used to build forms (the user
interface part), and also write code. These forms + code are what we call an
application. It is this application part that you create that needs to be
installed on each computer. You always installed the word application on
your computer. So, now that YOU ARE writing software, why should you throw
out all of the ideas and concepts as to how software works on your computer?

You can use a software tool like VB to create a word processing application,
and once done, you will install that application on each computer. I should
point out that you can also use ms-access to create a word processor, or a
Pac man game. Make no mistake here; ms-access is a tool that allows you to
create software. After you create that software, you need to install that
software on EACH computer like you done with everything else you used.

It possible that you have people in your organization that CAN NOT
understand the difference between things like a word document, and that of
the word program. (on the other, if your people don't know the difference
between an application, then how the heck can they give advice and make
assumptions to deploy your software SO DIFFERENT then EVERY OTHER software
application the company has?

It turns out that a good number of systems administers and general users of
computers have NOT thought about this common concept in software. It is not
a hard concept to grasp that software has a data part + application part. In
most organizations, installing the software on EACH desktop computer is not
even given a second thought. So, if you want to use word, you install word
on EACH computer. If you want to use Excel, then again, it is common
knowledge, and common sense that you install the application on the
workstation. Often, you will share some documents on a server, and allow
users to open those documents. Note carefully how even in this case, the
software (application part) is STILL INSTALLED on the workstation. Sure, you
can put the DATA PART, or so called document part on a shared server folder.
However, you STILL installed the software part on each computer.

If 2003 would run fine like this why won't 2007. What changed?

Gee, perhaps 2007 takes more bandwidth? Perhaps the new machines have
different or more security settings that puts more stress on the network. I
likely think of 10,000 + things that are different. On the other hand, it
possible that you not installing the software on each computer?

When 2007 opens the program, it has to re-compile the code to run as
2007 compatible mode. If you open the program in 2003, then the code again
is fighting as to what version is trying to run the code. (of course this
not usually a problem since most IT departments install software on EACH
comptuer and advoid this problem.

As for updating your copies of word, Excel, or in this case the great
application you and your team of developers created, there are MANY ways to
update each users machine. I mean for example, how do you upgrade to the
next version of Excel?

Anyway, Tony has a great automatic program here that can keep each users
desktop updated to the latest version of your software application that you
developed and plan to install on each computer...right? You can find that
"free" utility here:

http://www.autofeupdater.com/

 

[John Briley]

There seems to be some misunderstanding. I have all of Misrosoft Office Professional 2007 installed on each machine. This includes Access.

What we are talking about is the front end and back end of a database created in Access. That resides on the server. Access 2003 handles multiple users on a single copy of the front end quite nicely. However I can not get 2007 to do this.

In looking at some of the suggestions on the Microsoft help center it suggest I need to put a copy of the front end on each indvidual PC.

This does not seem practical since we make improvements and changes to the front end weekly an needs change. I never had to do this woth Acess 2003. What changed? Is there a work around?



Albert D. Kallal wrote:

Re: Multiuser with 2007 does not work
24-Sep-09

<John Briley> wrote in message
The above problem is usually fixed by a persistent connection. This i
common question here

So, #1 is to try a persistent connection. This and other performance thing
to check is outlined here

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.ht

How do you install 20 copies of word then

How do you install 20 copies of Excel then

Hint
Ask you IT department for the last 20 years why they been installed softwar
on EACH COMPUTER? Really, go ask them

Here is some answers you get

* The software now does not have to travel across the network each time i
is used. It would be a waste of network resources if applications such a
word etc. had to be loaded across the network and use up precious networ
bandwidth. Remember, networks are MUCH MUCH MUCH slower then your hard dis
to load files. Remember, the network is a SHARED resource. If you have tw
users on the network pulling data, then you have ONE HALF the amount o
resources available. You must treat your network with the utmost respect, a
it is a delicate and precious (limited) resource. When you have 4 people o
the same network, you have FOUR TIMES LESS THE performance. You MUST thus b
very careful. Imagine how slow things would be if all users loaded thei
software from the network each time

* If one user makes a change to their printer setup or just a general chang
to their settings, they have their OWN copy of the application to play with
and NOT interfere with other users on the network. Can you imagine two user
fighting over how their excel sheet should be laid out at the same time!

* If a user's software crashes, then no other users are affected. Can yo
imagine if word were to freeze up, or lock on your computer and everyon
else in the building also experienced a freeze up or lock up? Again, i
makes sense to install the application part on each pc as to ISOLAT
individual?s problems that might occur in the application. So, installin
software on each PC is a MUST DO from a reliability point of view. You don'
want to allow ONE user's problem to become the problem of everyone else

This is again why we split a database in ms-access in multi-user mod
(otherwise you will get NO reliability)

I could add MANY more reasons to the above list, but suffice to say that i
makes a lot of sense to install the software on each computer. I don?t thin
there are too many people that have trouble understanding the abov
concepts. I bet if you ask your IT department, they have FOR YEARS AND YEAR
been installing software on each computer

Why would you not do the same

However, when it comes to ms-access, the above concepts for some strang
reason are complete ignored. Users all of a sudden get some type of freez
in the brain, and all of a sudden compete ignore how they deployed softwar
on their computers for that last 15 years

You can use many different kinds of tools to create software with. Thes
tools like c++, VB, and yes even ms-access are used to build forms (the use
interface part), and also write code. These forms + code are what we call a
application. It is this application part that you create that needs to b
installed on each computer. You always installed the word application o
your computer. So, now that YOU ARE writing software, why should you throw
out all of the ideas and concepts as to how software works on your computer?

You can use a software tool like VB to create a word processing application,
and once done, you will install that application on each computer. I should
point out that you can also use ms-access to create a word processor, or a
Pac man game. Make no mistake here; ms-access is a tool that allows you to
create software. After you create that software, you need to install that
software on EACH computer like you done with everything else you used.

It possible that you have people in your organization that CAN NOT
understand the difference between things like a word document, and that of
the word program. (on the other, if your people don't know the difference
between an application, then how the heck can they give advice and make
assumptions to deploy your software SO DIFFERENT then EVERY OTHER software
application the company has?

It turns out that a good number of systems administers and general users of

EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
WPF And The Model View View Model Pattern
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorial...b-7374d3da3425/wpf-and-the-model-view-vi.aspx

 

[Gina Whipp]

John,

Please REread Albert's reply... pay particular attention to the bottom where
it tells you how to handle updating multiple front-ends. (Here let me help
you with that... http://www.autofeupdater.com/) I understand you COULD do
this with Access 2003 but any experienced programmer would not even consider
this set-up for ALL the reasons, and then some, Albert stated. (There's a
saying, "Just because you CAN do a thing does not mean you SHOULD do a
thing.") Personally, I am glad, no THRILLED, if in fact ,Access 2007
prohibits Users sharing a single front-end. (I have not tested that theory
as I have yet to move my Clients to Access 2007 databases. They are using
Access 2003 databases with Access 2007.)

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

There seems to be some misunderstanding. I have all of Misrosoft Office
Professional 2007 installed on each machine. This includes Access.

Right, we not talking about office here. We talking about a program YOU
developed.

What we are talking about is the front end and back end of a database
created in Access.

yes, correct:

The front end - program code, user interface , reports. You know, a computer
program you run, a program you developed

The back end - a data file for the above front end program.

That resides on the server. Access 2003 handles multiple users on a single
copy of the front end quite nicely.

Well, actually it does not. Perhaps in your case it did. We see posts here
every day and people upgrade from access 97, or access 2000 to 2003, and
they say the SAME thing you are saying right now. (just do a search..you see
TONS of these posts). So, I don't know what you changed, but your problem is
NOT new, nor is in any way limited to 2007.

This does not seem practical since we make improvements and changes to the
front end weekly an needs change.

And what's your experience with other software applications you used? I know
this information resides inside of your brain right now! The the likely
answer is the software probably had some kind of option in the menus to
check for new upgrade (or simply informed you every time you run the
application). You simply have to adopt the same idea as what most other
softwre devleopers do in this case (provie some type of auto update system).

I never had to do this woth Acess 2003.

That just means you've been lucky. surely you can tell me you're unable to
distinguish between the concept of a computer program that has things like
visual basic code in it, and that of the data file. it just astounds me at
your lack of ability to grasp this simple concept.

I effect you are comming for advice here, and you're asking about a Mechanic
you have that's telling you that they never changed the oil in their
vehicles and there's never been a problem. will maybe there hasn't been for
the first years so, but a venture those vehicles are gonna get in serious
trouble or something's going to happen.

You are going to have to grasp and learn the ability to distinguish between
a data file, and that of a computer program with things like forms, a user
interface, visual basic code etc.

You are asking for advice here and then stating you can't grasp the
differnce between a program and a data file.

Are you really not aware that word has a program part, and then that
proggram consumes a docuemnt part?

You have developed a computer program and it can piece of software that your
try to deploy to your users. for what reason would you trade a piece of
software developed in MS access, compared to C. plus plus or some other
development platform? why are you feeling to make a distinction here, or
singling out YOUR application to be treated differntly here?

You seem to lack the understanding that MS access is a DEVELOPMENT tool that
allows you to create software applications. If you can't grasp this simple
concept, then it time to just quit using computers altogether. You have to
bring in someone else who has the competency that can realize that you are
attempting to deploy software here.

This is no different than if the person you company maintaining your
vehicle's can't understand why the vehicles are breaking down, but refuses
to grasp the concept that they have to change the oil in those vehicles.

At a certain point, it comes to a time in which someone has to raise the
alarm bells and state that people are wasting or damaing company property
and resources. At a certain point after that it becomes one of actual
incompetence in which poeple are wilfull and intentionally damaging company
property because they don't want to listen to any advice.

I'm just having a very difficult time trying to understand why you can grasp
the above simple concept that you're attempting to deploy computer code and
programs to those users. I suppose it's possible that you don't realize that
your application you develop have some code in it, but then again that seems
very strange.

for my many users of the field which I never C., I have a built in updating
system integrated into my software, you can build the same, or use somthing
likes Tony's who has graciously provided his updating software free of
charge to the access community here.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

In looking at some of the suggestions on the Microsoft help center it suggest I need to put a copy of the front end on each indvidual PC.
Correct.

This does not seem practical since we make improvements and changes to the front end weekly an needs change. I never had to do this woth Acess 2003. What changed? Is there a work around?

You were very fortunate. Many folks who upgrade from A97 to A2000
found they had to stop sharing the FE.

Also it's difficult to copy in a new version of the FE when folks are
sharing it.

I built the free Auto FE Updater for this exact reason. I sometimes
will create a new MDB and copy it to the server two or three times a
day when working at a client site. Among other things it can copy the
new FE to the users Application Data folder so it's effectively
hidden.

Tony

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Right, we not talking about office here. We talking about a program YOU
developed.

Albert

In my opinion your posting could be perceived as a little harsh or a
little sarcastic.

Just to inform others Albert and I have met in person a number of
times usually over beer or wine. Albert does get quite excitable
about Access but in person he comes across very friendly like. I can
just see him dictating his posting into the PC now waving his hands
bouncing up and down. <smile>

Tony

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Albert

In my opinion your posting could be perceived as a little harsh or a
little sarcastic.

You know what? You are right...it not in the best of my character......

I am going to work on this delivery...and it does sound condescending..that
just not good! My apologies here.

We are here to help you. Not preach. A *big* difference! Do take my post as
being somewhat rhetorical in sounding...as that is my goal.

And, by the way Tony, thanks for the heads up...it kind of like being told
to be quiet in class...being told usually lasts me for about a year or
so....

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

And, by the way Tony, thanks for the heads up...it kind of like being told
to be quiet in class...being told usually lasts me for about a year or
so....

Hehehehe. You're welcome.

Tony