f



multiple users' simultaneous access to a MS Access database

When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
database.

However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
time.

Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
Access database?

Thanks in advance, Zuf
0
zufie
9/23/2010 3:13:22 PM
comp.databases.ms-access 42670 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

33 Replies
1687 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 43

Per zufie:
>When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
>icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
>database.
>
>However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
>the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
>time.
>
>Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
>would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
>Access database?

Somebody else might have a better idea, but one approach is to
copy the row tb edited to a work table, let the person edit it
there, and then click a "Save" button to copy it back.

To do that, users have to accept that "Last In Wins"... and,
technically, you'd need to have an error trap to deal with the
small chance somebody else hit "Save" at exactly the same time
for a record in the same block - which would count to ten and
then try the save again.

You can add bells an whistles - like keeping a table of who is
editing what and notifying people on the same record
accordingly...
-- 
PeteCresswell
0
PeteCresswell
9/23/2010 3:17:57 PM
zufie wrote:

> When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
> icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
> database.
> 
> However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
> the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
> time.
> 
> Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
> would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
> Access database?
> 
> Thanks in advance, Zuf

Does the desktop shortcut have anything like
	/EXCL
in the command line?

Under Tools/Option/Advanced is the StartUp option set to shared or 
exclusive?
0
Salad
9/23/2010 3:37:33 PM
On Sep 23, 10:37=A0am, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote:
> zufie wrote:
> > When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
> > icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
> > database.
>
> > However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
> > the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
> > time.
>
> > Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
> > would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
> > Access database?
>
> > Thanks in advance, Zuf
>
> Does the desktop shortcut have anything like
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 /EXCL
> in the command line?
>
> Under Tools/Option/Advanced is the StartUp option set to shared or
> exclusive?

Nope, no /EXCEL. I ensured the StartUp option was set to shared.

I compared the StartUp option and other options on the Advanced tab to
a second database also on the NAL menu. Both database have the same
options.

Salad--Could/Would a person's profile be a cause for this? That is,
can a profile become corrupted and thefore interfere with a person's
access to a particular file?
0
9/23/2010 3:54:45 PM
Per (PeteCresswell):
>copy the row tb edited to a work table

Or, of course, just to the text boxes on a screen if it's a
simple enough situation.
-- 
PeteCresswell
0
PeteCresswell
9/23/2010 4:30:05 PM
zufie wrote:

> On Sep 23, 10:37 am, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote:
> 
>>zufie wrote:
>>
>>>When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
>>>icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
>>>database.
>>
>>>However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
>>>the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
>>>time.
>>
>>>Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
>>>would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
>>>Access database?
>>
>>>Thanks in advance, Zuf
>>
>>Does the desktop shortcut have anything like
>>        /EXCL
>>in the command line?
>>
>>Under Tools/Option/Advanced is the StartUp option set to shared or
>>exclusive?
> 
> 
> Nope, no /EXCEL. I ensured the StartUp option was set to shared.
> 
> I compared the StartUp option and other options on the Advanced tab to
> a second database also on the NAL menu. Both database have the same
> options.
> 
> Salad--Could/Would a person's profile be a cause for this? That is,
> can a profile become corrupted and thefore interfere with a person's
> access to a particular file?

In your case I don't see how.  UserA can get in if UserB is not in.  If 
UserB is in UserA is denied.  ULS wouldn't have anything to do with that.

If not affected by startup options or command lines I'd then check 
folder or file properties.
0
Salad
9/23/2010 4:38:02 PM
Hi,

zufie wrote:
> On Sep 23, 10:37 am, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote:
>> zufie wrote:
>>> When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
>>> icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
>>> database.
>>
>>> However, when another staff member is using the database she
>>> receives the message that someone is using it and she cannot access
>>> it at that time.
>>
>>> Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
>>> would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
>>> Access database?

What about the users rights on the folder containing the .mbd file ?

The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have read, 
write, create, and delete privileges.
So maybe a ldb file could not be created. You can read more about it here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208778

Regards
Jens


0
Jens
9/23/2010 5:10:46 PM
"Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoeschen@fissership.de> wrote in
news:i7g1mt$d4f$00$1@news.t-online.com: 

> The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have
> read, write, create, and delete privileges.

DELETE is not absolutely required.

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
NoEmail4557 (375)
9/23/2010 8:10:25 PM
On Sep 23, 11:10=A0am, "Jens Schilling"
<JensSchillingBitteLoesc...@fissership.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> zufie wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 10:37 am, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote:
> >> zufie wrote:
> >>> When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
> >>> icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
> >>> database.
>
> >>> However, when another staff member is using the database she
> >>> receives the message that someone is using it and she cannot access
> >>> it at that time.
>
> >>> Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
> >>> would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
> >>> Access database?
>
> What about the users rights on the folder containing the .mbd file ?
>
> The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have read,
> write, create, and delete privileges.
> So maybe a ldb file could not be created. You can read more about it here=
:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208778
>
> Regards
> Jens

it may not be folder permission, it could be windows user groups
I've seen it where userA is a power-user or administrator, and userB
is a regular user
if userB opens the mdb first, userA can also open it
but not vice versa
0
Roger
9/23/2010 9:27:17 PM
Hi, David

David W. Fenton wrote:
> "Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoeschen@fissership.de> wrote in
> news:i7g1mt$d4f$00$1@news.t-online.com:
>
>> The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have
>> read, write, create, and delete privileges.
>
> DELETE is not absolutely required.

Maybe you are right - but it is documented in the same wording in the 
knowledge base article that I have mentioned.

Regards
Jens


0
Jens
9/24/2010 5:58:33 AM
"Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoeschen@fissership.de> wrote in
news:i7hemj$sg4$03$1@news.t-online.com: 

> David W. Fenton wrote:
>> "Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoeschen@fissership.de> wrote
>> in news:i7g1mt$d4f$00$1@news.t-online.com:
>>
>>> The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have
>>> read, write, create, and delete privileges.
>>
>> DELETE is not absolutely required.
> 
> Maybe you are right - but it is documented in the same wording in
> the knowledge base article that I have mentioned.

The article is WRONG. Lots of MS's documentation includes false
statements. 

If you remove DELETE permission, you'll be back to Jet behaving just
like it did in Access 2, Jet 2.x, which left the LDB file intact
when you closed all connections. 

The minor danger there is that any corruption in the LDB file can
survive the closing of the last connection, and occasionally it
might block a compact. 

But in a multi-user context, the LDB file won't be deleted that
often, anyway, since it can only happen when the last user logs off. 

I've been running production configurations with no DELETE
permission since 1997 and it works fine as long as you have some
administrative users who are in an NTFS user group that has DELETE
permission. 

The reason for removing DELETE permission on the folder is so that
users can't delete the main data file. There is no other way to do
that through NTFS security, and no other mechanism that I can think
of. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
David
9/24/2010 6:10:44 PM
On Sep 24, 1:10=A0pm, "David W. Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:
> "Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoesc...@fissership.de> wrote innews:=
i7hemj$sg4$03$1@news.t-online.com:
>
> > David W. Fenton wrote:
> >> "Jens Schilling" <JensSchillingBitteLoesc...@fissership.de> wrote
> >> innews:i7g1mt$d4f$00$1@news.t-online.com:
>
> >>> The .mdb file should be located in a folder where all users have
> >>> read, write, create, and delete privileges.
>
> >> DELETE is not absolutely required.
>
> > Maybe you are right - but it is documented in the same wording in
> > the knowledge base article that I have mentioned.
>
> The article is WRONG. Lots of MS's documentation includes false
> statements.
>
> If you remove DELETE permission, you'll be back to Jet behaving just
> like it did in Access 2, Jet 2.x, which left the LDB file intact
> when you closed all connections.
>
> The minor danger there is that any corruption in the LDB file can
> survive the closing of the last connection, and occasionally it
> might block a compact.
>
> But in a multi-user context, the LDB file won't be deleted that
> often, anyway, since it can only happen when the last user logs off.
>
> I've been running production configurations with no DELETE
> permission since 1997 and it works fine as long as you have some
> administrative users who are in an NTFS user group that has DELETE
> permission.
>
> The reason for removing DELETE permission on the folder is so that
> users can't delete the main data file. There is no other way to do
> that through NTFS security, and no other mechanism that I can think
> of.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com=
/
> contact via website only =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

This is what my HelpDesk person told me:

"I believe the Users rights to the folder are requested by the DB/
folder owner/administrator, and is established when their access is
granted and they are entered as a trustee.

I looked at the application icon and it points to the DB file:
WHLP.mdb, located at:

\\10.8.16.21\DATA\APPS\Production\OWH\WHL\DOC\SourceCode\Executable\

There are no Users specifically listed as trustees for this folder,
but Miriam does have full rights through inherited rights.  The same
for the DB file, itself.

Since that should remove folder/file rights to the DB as the issue, I
would wonder if the DB might contain some calls to other files that
may be outside this folder, where the rights wouldn=92t extend, like
does the PROD DB call on files located within TEST, or something along
those lines.

Beyond that, I wouldn=92t be able to speculate without more details.
The DB creator and/or administrator would need to go over the code to
determine if there are internal issues at play, here."

Previous to this, my HelpDesk person told me: "I added the app to my
profile and am able to access the proper DB normally."
0
9/28/2010 6:01:26 PM
On Sep 24, 2:10=A0pm, "David W. Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:

> The reason for removing DELETE permission on the folder is so that
> users can't delete the main data file. There is no other way to do
> that through NTFS security, and no other mechanism that I can think
> of.

The network admins where I work simply changed the ACL properties.
When a user tries to view a location containing back end databases,
they get "Access Denied," but are still able to use front end
databases linked to those tables.  If they are also prevented from
seeing the database window, then they can't get at the data except
through your interface.  The admins confessed that they discovered
that behavior by accident while tightening security to comply better
with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  Originally,
they had tried a registry hack to block viewing the directories.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

Be aware that the U.S. Government does not take ITAR discrepancies
lightly!  They are serious when they use terms such as =93excessive
fines=94, =93shut down=94 and =93incarceration=94.  Our customers have to a=
dhere
to rigorous rules and regulations to maintain their ITAR status.  They
will not risk their ITAR status for a vendor! -- Joe K.
0
James
9/29/2010 3:56:30 PM
This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is it
just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?

The Frog
0
The
9/30/2010 2:53:33 PM
On Sep 30, 10:53=A0am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
> wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is it
> just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?

What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked to
those tables" was unclear :-)?

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com
0
James
10/1/2010 11:06:04 AM
On Sep 23, 11:13=A0am, zufie <john.marru...@illinois.gov> wrote:
> When my end user clicks on the icon for her MS Access database (the
> icon is on her Novell NAL menu) she is successful in opening the
> database.
>
> However, when another staff member is using the database she receives
> the message that someone is using it and she cannot access it at that
> time.
>
> Any suggestions as to what I need to do to resolve this? I guess it
> would be a fix to allow multiple users simultaneous access to a MS
> Access database?
>
> Thanks in advance, Zuf

This may be a long shot but do any of the users Access installation
have the Adobe add-in in it??
0
bobh
10/1/2010 5:38:00 PM
Hi James,

The OP has never specified that it is a split application into FE /
BE. In the OP's words:
Quote: "I looked at the application icon and it points to the DB
file:
WHLP.mdb, located at:


\\10.8.16.21\DATA\APPS\Production\OWH\WHL\DOC\SourceCode\Executable\"

The OP has never indicated that this is a split FE / BE database
application. Given the access restriction problem, particularly in a
Novell (if I am not mistaken) environment, this could easily explain
the problem. Therefore if this is the problem the solution presents
itself! Split the DB. Place the FE on each client machine, vis a vis
normal practice, and share the BE on the network. It looks to me like
either the DB isnt split or the OP is tring to 'share' the FE.

Zufie, do you know if this is a split DB? Is it just a single file
(MDB) with everything in it? If it is split, is the executable (I
think the one I have quoted from you above) able to be installed on
each client machine? I am just trying to get some clarity on the
application and the environment in which it has to work.

Cheers

The Frog
0
10/4/2010 7:12:39 AM
James A. Fortune wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
>> wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
>> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is it
>> just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>
> What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked to
> those tables" was unclear :-)?
>
Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that post to 
us?




0
Bob
10/4/2010 11:51:49 AM
On Oct 4, 7:51=A0am, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> James A. Fortune wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
> >> wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
> >> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is it
> >> just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>
> > What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked to
> > those tables" was unclear :-)?
>
> Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that post =
to
> us?

I posted those words.  The portions in double quotes were direct
quotations.  Didn't my post of Sep 29 -- the one The Frog replied to
-- show up?  I still see it with Google Groups.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com
0
James
10/4/2010 5:18:10 PM
James A. Fortune wrote:
> On Oct 4, 7:51 am, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> James A. Fortune wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
>>>> wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
>>>> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is
>>>> it just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>>
>>> What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked to
>>> those tables" was unclear :-)?
>>
>> Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that
>> post to us?
>
> I posted those words.  The portions in double quotes were direct
> quotations.  Didn't my post of Sep 29 -- the one The Frog replied to
> -- show up?  I still see it with Google Groups.

Are you the OP (original poster)? If not, then you really can't speak
for the OP can you? We're still trying to make suggestions to solve
zufie's issue.

-- 
HTH,
Bob Barrows


0
Bob
10/4/2010 5:33:29 PM
The Frog <mr.frog.to.you@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:1776f9a0-438e-4256-a6de-5e1aba094ecb@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
: 

> \\10.8.16.21\DATA\APPS\Production\OWH\WHL\DOC\SourceCode\Executable
> \" 
> 
> The OP has never indicated that this is a split FE / BE database
> application. Given the access restriction problem, particularly in
> a Novell (if I am not mistaken) environment, this could easily
> explain the problem. Therefore if this is the problem the solution
> presents itself! Split the DB. Place the FE on each client
> machine, vis a vis normal practice, and share the BE on the
> network. It looks to me like either the DB isnt split or the OP is
> tring to 'share' the FE. 

Well, in addition to that, the path there is a recipe for BAD
PERFORMANCE. If the NAS allows it, a share should be created on the
\Executable\ folder so as to avoid the long path. 

(I have never understood why so many sysadmins map root to a single
share on a server and then expect their users to navigate that many
levels down, instead of mapping multiple shares from different
levels within the actual file system hierarchy. Is it that they are
Novell refugees and still in a multiple drive mapped-root frame of
mind? Is it that they don't know how to create multiple shares? Is
it that they've never noticed how hard their setups are for users to
navigate? Is it that they are just dickheads who don't care?) 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
NoEmail4557 (375)
10/4/2010 6:20:37 PM
Hi David,

> (I have never understood why so many sysadmins map root to a single
> share on a server and then expect their users to navigate that many
> levels down, instead of mapping multiple shares from different
> levels within the actual file system hierarchy. Is it that they are
> Novell refugees and still in a multiple drive mapped-root frame of
> mind? Is it that they don't know how to create multiple shares? Is
> it that they've never noticed how hard their setups are for users to
> navigate? Is it that they are just dickheads who don't care?)

I have this exact issue at my current workplace. I discovered the
answer: Laziness. They simply take the quickest path to 'getting the
job done'. I know that they have the technical knowledge to create
more shares, they just dont do it. They also dont want to take the
responsibility for changing anything - and use the impenetratable
shield of 'CORPORATE GOVERNANCE' (say it in a cartoonish super-villain
voice) to justify their inaction. When pressured on the topic they
will typically dodge answering and handball the issue between
themselves until it is either 'lost' or forgotten, or if you are
persistant enough you will get back to the place you started from:
having to ask if it can be done. Forever circles.

I do hope that Zufie comes back with some info we can use to help.

Cheers

The Frog
0
The
10/5/2010 7:57:37 AM
Hi there

I think your best chance is to create a request broker. You create a
program that does the accesses to your Access db and makes a queue of
requests. You can prioritize say selects first than updates, delete and
finally insert. In effect you could create a database server. Of course,
you will need to create a way of connecting the client software to that
broker. Best solution would be a winsock and create a protocol to encode
requests and also one to send results. 



*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
0
Christian
10/5/2010 12:40:02 PM
On Oct 4, 1:33=A0pm, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote:
> James A. Fortune wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 7:51 am, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> James A. Fortune wrote:
> >>> On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed the
> >>>> wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
> >>>> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is
> >>>> it just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>
> >>> What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked to
> >>> those tables" was unclear :-)?
>
> >> Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that
> >> post to us?
>
> > I posted those words. =A0The portions in double quotes were direct
> > quotations. =A0Didn't my post of Sep 29 -- the one The Frog replied to
> > -- show up? =A0I still see it with Google Groups.
>
> Are you the OP (original poster)? If not, then you really can't speak
> for the OP can you? We're still trying to make suggestions to solve
> zufie's issue.
>
> --
> HTH,
> Bob Barrows

I was replying to a comment by David Fenton.  I didn't realize that
The Frog was asking the OP a question because that post was a reply to
my post.  I have to confess that I haven't tried very hard to solve
zufie's issue, nor have I even read the thread carefully enough to
know what the issue is in detail, much less solve it.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com
0
James
10/5/2010 7:41:33 PM
James A. Fortune wrote:
> On Oct 4, 1:33 pm, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote:
>> James A. Fortune wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 7:51 am, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> James A. Fortune wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed
>>>>>> the wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
>>>>>> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is
>>>>>> it just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>>
>>>>> What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked
>>>>> to those tables" was unclear :-)?
>>
>>>> Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that
>>>> post to us?
>>
>>> I posted those words. The portions in double quotes were direct
>>> quotations. Didn't my post of Sep 29 -- the one The Frog replied to
>>> -- show up? I still see it with Google Groups.
>>
>> Are you the OP (original poster)? If not, then you really can't speak
>> for the OP can you? We're still trying to make suggestions to solve
>> zufie's issue.
>>
>
> I was replying to a comment by David Fenton.  I didn't realize that
> The Frog was asking the OP a question because that post was a reply to
> my post.  I have to confess that I haven't tried very hard to solve
> zufie's issue, nor have I even read the thread carefully enough to
> know what the issue is in detail, much less solve it.
>
Ah,  I thought Frog's question was obviously directed to the OP despite
it being a reply to your post, and you thought it was directed to you
despite it being a non sequitur from your post. :-) All is clear now.
Thx, and apologies.

-- 
HTH,
Bob Barrows


0
Bob
10/5/2010 7:53:53 PM
The Frog <mr.frog.to.you@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:062b6e63-03c4-4c37-827d-776659d8d94c@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
m: 

> Hi David,
> 
>> (I have never understood why so many sysadmins map root to a
>> single share on a server and then expect their users to navigate
>> that many levels down, instead of mapping multiple shares from
>> different levels within the actual file system hierarchy. Is it
>> that they are Novell refugees and still in a multiple drive
>> mapped-root frame of mind? Is it that they don't know how to
>> create multiple shares? Is it that they've never noticed how hard
>> their setups are for users to navigate? Is it that they are just
>> dickheads who don't care?) 
> 
> I have this exact issue at my current workplace. I discovered the
> answer: Laziness. They simply take the quickest path to 'getting
> the job done'. I know that they have the technical knowledge to
> create more shares, they just dont do it. They also dont want to
> take the responsibility for changing anything - and use the
> impenetratable shield of 'CORPORATE GOVERNANCE' (say it in a
> cartoonish super-villain voice) to justify their inaction. When
> pressured on the topic they will typically dodge answering and
> handball the issue between themselves until it is either 'lost' or
> forgotten, or if you are persistant enough you will get back to
> the place you started from: having to ask if it can be done.
> Forever circles. 

It is actually quite a lot of work to sit down and figure out what
the best way to organize your server is. In my opinion, when your
users browse via My Network Places to your server, they should see
no more than a dozen or fewer top-level shares. Figuring out what
those should be is not a sysadmin task, though -- it's the job of
the managers to decide how to organize the information their users
need access to. 

The other thing about that is that you can then set more granular
permissions on the shares. For instance, \Finance\ should probably
not be accessible to anyone but a small group of people. 

I've done this many times with clients, and it's always a lot of
work to think through all of this, and I spend a lot of time with
them. But in the end, they have a server organized the way they need
to use it, and they are much happier. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
David
10/5/2010 8:24:31 PM
On 05 Oct 2010 12:40:02 GMT, Christian Alain Ouellet
<caouellet@msn.com> wrote:
  
>I think your best chance is to create a request broker. You create a
>program that does the accesses to your Access db and makes a queue of
>requests. You can prioritize say selects first than updates, delete and
>finally insert. In effect you could create a database server. Of course,
>you will need to create a way of connecting the client software to that
>broker. Best solution would be a winsock and create a protocol to encode
>requests and also one to send results. 

I'd suggest switching to SQL Server then.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
0
ttoews (2789)
10/6/2010 3:16:27 AM
If it's on a Netware server then the users need Read & Write to the
backend DB. The LDB should be set with file permissions Shareable,
Rename Inhibit, Delete Inhibit (start the application, set the Netware
properties, apply them) which means they don't need Create. This works
on the apps I support. There's also a Novell TID (advisory) on setting
Cacheing off, which (if on) can foul things up.
0
a
10/6/2010 3:23:58 PM
a b <erratticus@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1c17b88d-4316-48d2-85f1-b939b42a3a29@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
: 

> If it's on a Netware server then the users need Read & Write to
> the backend DB. The LDB should be set with file permissions
> Shareable, Rename Inhibit, Delete Inhibit (start the application,
> set the Netware properties, apply them) which means they don't
> need Create. This works on the apps I support. There's also a
> Novell TID (advisory) on setting Cacheing off, which (if on) can
> foul things up. 
> 

On Novell, can you set permissions by file type? If not, then I
don't understand what you mean about setting LDB permissions. Also,
I don't know why you'd set "Delete Inhibit" on the LDB. I don't know
what that means, but it seems to imply that it prevents the deletion
of the LDB, which is not necessarily a preferred environment to run
in. Certainly if as with NTFS you can set permissions only on
existing files and folders, removing DELETE permission can be a
safety measure (preventing a user from "accidentally" deleting your
back end), but you were speaking of the LDB, so I'm confused. 

(personally, I'd never let clients store production Jet/ACE files on
anything but a native Windows file system) 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
NoEmail4557 (375)
10/6/2010 8:11:05 PM
On 6 Oct 2010 20:11:05 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
<NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
  
>Certainly if as with NTFS you can set permissions only on
>existing files and folders, 

Actually you can set permissions on folders and possibly files that
don't exist using ACL and Active Directory and such.  I forget the
details as it's been quite a while now but I wrote a program for a
construction company to set permissions on job subfolders, such as
Drawings, Invoicing, TimeSheets to be by Active Directory group.   

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
0
ttoews (2789)
10/7/2010 4:10:19 AM
Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:mthqa6tps3lvg1jvr8g5cnpvj2tr1i43fv@4ax.com: 

> On 6 Oct 2010 20:11:05 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
><NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
>   
>>Certainly if as with NTFS you can set permissions only on
>>existing files and folders, 
> 
> Actually you can set permissions on folders and possibly files
> that don't exist using ACL and Active Directory and such.  I
> forget the details as it's been quite a while now but I wrote a
> program for a construction company to set permissions on job
> subfolders, such as Drawings, Invoicing, TimeSheets to be by
> Active Directory group.   

I'm interested in the idea of setting permissions on files that
don't yet exist, as distinct from the usual thing I've done of
removing DELETE permissons on the folder (that propagates to the
files created inside it, of course). 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
NoEmail4557 (375)
10/8/2010 1:17:58 AM
On Oct 5, 3:53=A0pm, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote:
> James A. Fortune wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 1:33 pm, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote:
> >> James A. Fortune wrote:
> >>> On Oct 4, 7:51 am, "Bob Barrows" <reb01...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> James A. Fortune wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 30, 10:53 am, The Frog <mr.frog.to....@googlemail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> This might seem like a silly question, and maybe I just missed
> >>>>>> the wording somewhere, but I thought it prudent to ask:
> >>>>>> Is the database application split into Front End / Back End or is
> >>>>>> it just a 'stand-alone' file (.mdb)?
>
> >>>>> What part of "back end databases" or "front end databases linked
> >>>>> to those tables" was unclear :-)?
>
> >>>> Only the part about who said those words ... care to point out that
> >>>> post to us?
>
> >>> I posted those words. The portions in double quotes were direct
> >>> quotations. Didn't my post of Sep 29 -- the one The Frog replied to
> >>> -- show up? I still see it with Google Groups.
>
> >> Are you the OP (original poster)? If not, then you really can't speak
> >> for the OP can you? We're still trying to make suggestions to solve
> >> zufie's issue.
>
> > I was replying to a comment by David Fenton. =A0I didn't realize that
> > The Frog was asking the OP a question because that post was a reply to
> > my post. =A0I have to confess that I haven't tried very hard to solve
> > zufie's issue, nor have I even read the thread carefully enough to
> > know what the issue is in detail, much less solve it.
>
> Ah, =A0I thought Frog's question was obviously directed to the OP despite
> it being a reply to your post, and you thought it was directed to you
> despite it being a non sequitur from your post. :-) All is clear now.
> Thx, and apologies.
>
> --
> HTH,
> Bob Barrows

Yes.  It's all about me :-).  Sometimes it's hard to tell the
erroneous non sequiturs from the intentional ones :-).

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com
0
James
10/8/2010 3:36:32 PM
On Oct 6, 9:11=A0pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:

> On Novell, can you set permissions by file type? If not, then I
> don't understand what you mean about setting LDB permissions. Also,
> I don't know why you'd set "Delete Inhibit" on the LDB. I don't know
> what that means, but it seems to imply that it prevents the deletion
> of the LDB, which is not necessarily a preferred environment to run
> in. Certainly if as with NTFS you can set permissions only on
> existing files and folders, removing DELETE permission can be a
> safety measure (preventing a user from "accidentally" deleting your
> back end), but you were speaking of the LDB, so I'm confused.
>
No, the master user (who has file Create right) starts the
application,
then applies the Netware file attributes Rename Inhibit, Delete
Inhibit,
Shareable to the LDB that Access creates for the backend. When the
master user exits the application, Access doesn't/can't delete the LDB
as it has Delete Inhibit. Effectively, the LDB is always on disk, so
the
ordinary user doesn't need file Create rights.

Not sure what you mean by not deleting the LDB being not a preferred
environment? It works for the applications I support with 100's of
users,
with no more than the usual Access bugs occurrring!
0
a
10/11/2010 2:20:34 PM
a b <erratticus@gmail.com> wrote in
news:525eb847-5d0c-425e-adea-d999a942ab52@l35g2000vbr.googlegroups.co
m: 

> Not sure what you mean by not deleting the LDB being not a
> preferred environment? It works for the applications I support
> with 100's of users,
> with no more than the usual Access bugs occurrring!

Well, because an LDB file can become corrupted in regular use, it's
good to have it deleted and recreated from scratch. The scenario you
describe is like Access 2 and before, where the LDB file was not
deleted when the last user exited, and Microsoft changed that in Jet
3.x, so that the LDB file is deleted when the last user exits. 

All that said, it's not a huge problem, just not the default
operating environment. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
0
NoEmail4557 (375)
10/11/2010 5:43:48 PM
Reply: