back up database

[iccsi]

I need exclusive to open database to backup database.
If there is one client to connect the backend then I am unable to do
it.

Are there any workaround for this?
I know that I can copy and paster the mdb, but backup also compact the
database.


Your information is great appreciated,

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Copying an open database during a write can cause corruption. If you cannot
close the database for the 15 seconds it takes to do a Compact and Repair,
then copy the file, I suggest that you should use a back-end like SQL-Server
which can accomplish a backup while it's open.

 

[iccsi]

Thanks for the message,
I have 20 users for my app.
If there is one connecting to the server then I have to copy and
paster without compacting the database.

Thanks again,

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Here's a sample database that will allow you to warn users that you are
going to kick them out for maintenance, then do just that.

http://www.datastrat.com/Download/KickEm.zip

You might also consider kicking everyone out at a certain time in the
evening and having the database just close and do a compact and repair.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com


Thanks for the message,
I have 20 users for my app.
If there is one connecting to the server then I have to copy and
paster without compacting the database.

Thanks again,

 

[RDub]

20 users hitting an Access database is a lot. Consider looking at MS SQL
Express as the back end database. It is FREE, and is a real industrial
strength database. Backups are easy no mater how many users are connected.
Also corruption of a Sql Express database is extremely rare. Oh yea, it is
likely you are looking at making only minor changes to your access front
end.

I have converted or am currently converting everything I have the runs over
a network to use the Sql Express back end. By the end of the year every
multi user database I have will have been converted. No more compact and
repair backend databases for me.

Ron W
Thanks for the message,
I have 20 users for my app.
If there is one connecting to the server then I have to copy and
paster without compacting the database.

Thanks again,

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

2 users on a poorly designed database is a lot. I've had 53 users connected
to as many as 75 front-end files without even the slightest problems of
corruption for years at a time. As far as compacting, even a daily routine
is less administrative work than using SQL-Server correctly. ALL databases
need maintenance. Failure to do so will cause corruption or other problems
in any system.

That said, I agree that in his particular case SQL-Express might be a good
idea since he apparently has no control over when and how users are logged
in.

 

[Larry Linson]

2 users on a poorly designed database is a lot. I've had 53
users connected to as many as 75 front-end files without
even the slightest problems of corruption for years at a time.

But, for the database not to support any users (which can also be the case),
or 2, someone has had to make a concerted effort to do just about everything
wrong. In my experience, even a database that is far from "perfect" should
support 20 users without problems -- as far back as Access 2.0, in fact.

And, if 20 users seems "a lot", then the chances of a converted but not
revised database seeming so much better in SQL Server thatn the developer
would convert everything are, IMNSHO, minimal. Thus, I would guess that
RDub corrected a lot of old flaws in "necessary tweaks" for the SQL Server
environment.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[Ron Weiner]

I did not necessarily correct old flaws, but I did move some of the Sql
logic out of the front end and put it on the server as Stored Procedures,
Views, and Functions. In many cases the performance increase derived from
these "tweaks" was more than worth the effort involved. Finding the 10 rows
I need out of the hundreds of thousand in the table is nearly instantaneous
when the data does not have to go back and forth over a wire.

I now have centralized storage of all our data, simplified backup
scheduling, and far greater reliability than we had in the past.

We also have loads of Pocket PC's (nearly 200) that need to share some of
this data using a Sql CE database on the device. It was relatively easy to
get them to replicate back and forth with Sql Express as Microsoft fully
supports this. Data replication between Pocket PC's and Access databases is
no longer supported. In fact there is no longer support for a Compact
Access database (CDB) on Pocket PC's.

The only downside we have seen so far has been reduced portability. It
requires more effort to move data around from the home office to temporary
remote sites (we do this A LOT). Where before I was able to just copy a
file to a share on any PC, I now have to provide a Laptop (we bought four
used HP's for 250 bucks for this soul purpose) with Sql Express on it. That
turned out to be a thousand dollar solution that made set up at the remote
sites with rented PC's far easier too. Since the Server name is a known, I
can set up our software to be installed (actually just copied) on the
rentals and run right out of the box. I no longer get phone calls that
start with "I was linking to the back end when xxx happened".

All in all I am very happy with our conversion. Others should do what's
best for their organizations. But not to at least investigate a fully
supported free solution from Microsoft, is not doing your organization a
favor.

RDub