Exclusive mode, suddenly appeared...

[Guest]

I have had a fe/be split db (access 2003) that has been functioning fine for
years, with muiltiple users, able to get in at any time, up until about a
week ago.

Yes, my fe is on the server, for just the reason described in other threads
here. It makes it a LOT easier to distribute updates. But this db worked fine
like this, for years, until recently.

I have so far attributed the change to possibly some Kind of (security?)
patch pushed by MS, as to WHY it stopped working. This is really the only
change going on in this db recently. This is why I came here and found this
thread...

Anyone have any knowledge, or understanding, as to why this would just
happen suddenly ?

TIA !

MYKL

 

[Guest]

Is your FE an MDE or MDB?

Incidentally, ease of updates is not a good reason to have a shared FE in my
opinion. There are auto updaters out there. All you need to do is place new
version in a shared folder. Even a simple batch file to copy on open would be
better than having it shared. I appreciate that it has worked for many years
but it is a disaster waiting to happen and can cause corruption in your
database.

I have just taken over a project that was like this. The office manager
insisted that it worked fine as it was...Only as I got deeper into the
redevelopment and found erroneous data all over the place did I get repeated
"Oh yes, we are aware of that but we just..." remarks every time I pointed
something out!

Steve

 

[Guest]

Is your FE an MDE or MDB?
Do users have full Access or just runtime?

In my opinion, ease of updates is not a good reason to have a shared FE.
There are auto updaters that are simple to set up and you only have to place
your update in a shared folder on the server. Even a simple batch file that
copies the FE every time you start your app would be better than sharing it.
It is a disaster waiting to happen and could corrupt your BE.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Steve,
While I appreciate your opinion on why this would not be a good idea to run
this, this way, I do fail to see the problem with it. I have done this for
years (re. 12), and never had any issues with it corrupting any BE, on any
db, that I've developed. And I've literally developed scores. Additionally,
I've never read anything regarding MS suggesting NOT doing things this way,
until I began reading this thread. I will take this into consideration in the
future of course, but... all that being said...

.... I still have no idea as to why, beyond my original hypothesis that the
MS patch caused it, that this has suddenly occurred.

 

[Guest]

oh...btw... MDB.

Thanks.

Michael

Is your FE an MDE or MDB?
Do users have full Access or just runtime?

In my opinion, ease of updates is not a good reason to have a shared FE.
There are auto updaters that are simple to set up and you only have to place
your update in a shared folder on the server. Even a simple batch file that
copies the FE every time you start your app would be better than sharing it.
It is a disaster waiting to happen and could corrupt your BE.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Have you checked the setting in the MDB to see if it is set to Shared mode?
How are you opening the MDB?
Is it a registered installation (e.g. SageKey) with options in the registry?
Does this happen on any other MDB?

Steve

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Open a browser. Go to Google.com and type/paste in:
MS Access shared front-end corruption
I got over 500,000 hits on this admittedly-too-general topic.

Apparently, you've been very lucky so far (or haven't found the issues).

As Clint would say ... "?Do you feel lucky... well, do you?"

--
Regards

Jeff Boyce
www.InformationFutures.net

Microsoft Office/Access MVP


Microsoft IT Academy Program Mentor
http://microsoftitacademy.com/

 

[Guest]

See Below...

Have you checked the setting in the MDB to see if it is set to Shared mode?

Yes, it is running in shared mode. It seems to me that you are kinda missing
the point here though...this app has been running fine for the last 3+ years,
in shared mode, for all the users, until about 2 weeks ago. This is what
leads me to believe that it was/is an MS patch that was run that caused this
problem. I'm just trying to find out if anyone else has had this happen, and
what the fix might be, if there is one, besides backing out the patch (not an
option at this site...)

How are you opening the MDB?

Not sure I understand your question here... it is run from a shortcut on the
users desktop, which points to the MDB on the server.

Is it a registered installation (e.g. SageKey) with options in the registry?

No. It is purely an MSA 2003 MDB file, fe/be db resident on the same server

Does this happen on any other MDB?

Actually, I have tested this too...and yes, it has started happening with
other db's as well. Which also leads me to the conclusion that some patch was
run by IT (which they acknowledge having run patches right around the same
time that this problem started to arise) My best guess is that it is some
MSAccess or Office (security?)patch that was run for MSAccess 2007, we have
2003 on this site.

Also, as a point of note... I have copied a batch file to the users desktop
that copies the mdb at launch, to their desktop, from the original, resident
on the server and then launches the mdb. This DOES work, but feels like to
much of a bandaid, as it doesn't actually "solve" the problem.

 

[Guest]

Jeff,
Thanks for the search idea, although I haven't found anything regarding
running an FE on the server with it. Even, "Best Practices When Using
Microsoft Office Access 2003 in a Multi-user Environment" doesn't speak of it.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not a "this is the way we've always done it"
kind of person, but I manage a site with over 150 different MDB's and 15 SQL
databases and am in it quite literally up to my nose. I have never seen a
corruption problem because of this method of running an mdb.

Also, I don't believe in luck.

This problem popped up 2 weeks ago. I can "solve" it with a bandaid, or I
can try and find out what actually caused it, and fix it (if possible). This
is, of course, my preference.