Filter by Form causing corruption ???

[Dave G]

Since upgrading one of my clients from A97/W2000 to A2003/XP they have
suffered no end of data corruption problems, mainly involving one of
the main tables. The corruption can result in one record's fields
turning into chinese characters. On running the compact/repair I can
see that the corruption may be deeper than I expected because sometimes
indexes are missing and need to be replaced.

I used to think that overuse of 'ctrl-alt-delete' was the problem but
it's still happening. So now I'm wondering if the use of filter-byform
might cause it. There is a large form bound to the main table mentioned
above and they use filter-by- form a lot. Changing it to an unbound
form would be a nightmare.

Anyway - had anybody any views/experience of any problems cause by the
use of filter-by-form under A2003/XP, especially if they were'nt there
before ?

Thanks
Dave

[Haim Rubin]

Hi,
*** I not sure but maybe you shall install Service Pack 2 or the
latter, If u already installed so ignore this remark.

[Haim Rubin]

Continue due to my last remark,
I was encountered in that problem when upgrading my office too, but I
saw the table's data was like question mark, like I dont have the right
font, so check for SP2 or latter.

[Baz]

"Dave G @ K2" <Da************ *@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g10g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Since upgrading one of my clients from A97/W2000 to A2003/XP they have
suffered no end of data corruption problems, mainly involving one of
the main tables. The corruption can result in one record's fields
turning into chinese characters. On running the compact/repair I can
see that the corruption may be deeper than I expected because sometimes
indexes are missing and need to be replaced.

I used to think that overuse of 'ctrl-alt-delete' was the problem but
it's still happening. So now I'm wondering if the use of filter-byform
might cause it. There is a large form bound to the main table mentioned
above and they use filter-by- form a lot. Changing it to an unbound
form would be a nightmare.

Anyway - had anybody any views/experience of any problems cause by the
use of filter-by-form under A2003/XP, especially if they were'nt there
before ?

Thanks
Dave

You do have a split front-end/back-end, right? If not, then split that
database NOW!

Having said that, it doesn't seem likely that filter by form would be
causing this. Your first instinct - that something is interrupting database
updates - is more likely to be correct. If you are sure that users aren't
doing daft things like, as you mention, using the task manager to crash
Access, or turning the computer off at the power switch, are they perhaps
reporting that Access is crashing? Or are they having network glitches?
Has someone started using a wireless connection?

[Larry Linson]

"Dave G @ K2" <Da************ *@gmail.com> wrote

Since upgrading one of my clients from A97/W2000 to A2003/XP they have
suffered no end of data corruption problems, mainly involving one of
the main tables. The corruption can result in one record's fields
turning into chinese characters. On running the compact/repair I can
see that the corruption may be deeper than I expected because sometimes
indexes are missing and need to be replaced.
I used to think that overuse of 'ctrl-alt-delete' was the problem but
it's still happening.
Any use of Ctrl-Alt-Delete to end Access database execution is "overuse,"
and shutting down by turning off the power and dropped network connections
are also long-known causes of corruption. That is, "ungraceful termination"
is to be avoided.
So now I'm wondering if the use of filter-byform
might cause it. There is a large form bound to the main table mentioned
above and they use filter-by- form a lot. Changing it to an unbound
form would be a nightmare.
Yes, it would be a continuing maintenance nightmare, not to mention that
converting would mean that you are reimplementing functionality that is
built in to Access, and would have to test all that functionality (which, in
Access, has been tested for years and years). And, to top that off, it would
be unlikely to have a beneficial effect on your "frequent corruption
problem".
Anyway - had anybody any views/experience of any problems cause by the
use of filter-by-form under A2003/XP, especially if they were'nt there
before ?

The best source of information and links on avoiding corruption in
multi-user environments that I know about is MVP Tony Toews' site,
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm. Another great Access information site
is MVP Jeff Conrad's
http://home.bendbroadband.com/conrad...essjunkie.html.

Many, many Access applications involve Filters, even when the user /
developer doesn't realize it because that is what happens when the
DoCmd.OpenForm is used with either a Filter or WhereCondtion argument. It
seems unlikely to me that filtering itself is going to cause the problem you
are experiencing, but there are a number of conditions known to increase the
probability of corruption.

And, as you were already told, having multiple users logged in to the same
monolithic database or to the same front end significantly increases the
probability of corruption -- and that can be sensitive to many factors,
including versions of Access and the operating system. Many go for years
without experiencing it, and then make some apparently-minor,
apparently-innocuous change and suddenly are in Corruption City.

Of course, you should assure that you are up-to-date with Service Packs and
updates for Access and the operating system (if you have done both, then you
should also be up-to-date on the Jet database engine).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[David W. Fenton]

"Baz" <ba**@REMOVEbca p.THEeuro1net.C APScom> wrote in
news:e2******** **@news.e7even. com:

You do have a split front-end/back-end, right? If not, then split
that database NOW!

Having said that, it doesn't seem likely that filter by form would
be causing this. Your first instinct - that something is
interrupting database updates - is more likely to be correct. If
you are sure that users aren't doing daft things like, as you
mention, using the task manager to crash Access, or turning the
computer off at the power switch, are they perhaps reporting that
Access is crashing? Or are they having network glitches? Has
someone started using a wireless connection?

Let me also point out that adding a new computer to a network, even
one that is not using the Access application, can lead to
corruption, because it could have a bad NIC that is passing bad
packets into the network.

Look for what has changed in the operating environment between the
time the app was running smoothly and when it first corrupted in
this fashion. Check the server's event logs. Perhaps an automatic
Windows Update patch caused the problem.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Dave G]

Thanks everyone for your input so far. Just to clarify - it is a
classic FE/BE arrangement. The corruption started as soon as I upgraded
all machines to XP/Office2003. The server at the time was NT4. It has
also been upgraded recently to Server 2003, but of course there was no
difference either way.

I'm using automatic updates for everything.

At the time of the workstation upgrade no new hardware was added. The
company has since moved offices and so there is a completely new
cabling infrastructure - again no change to the corruption frequency -
about twice a week.

Today I started working on an unbound version and made pretty good
progress. I think my view at the moment is that the less time that the
workstations are "talking directly" to the tables, the better off they
will be. The users will lose some functionality which I will need to
replace in other ways, but when all else fails, I don't know what else
to do.

Thanks again for your input
Dave

[Allen Browne]

Just in case it's any help, Dave, you might check the list in:
Preventing corruption
at:
http://allenbrowne.com/ser-25.html

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dave G @ K2" <Da************ *@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@v 46g2000cwv.goog legroups.com...

Thanks everyone for your input so far. Just to clarify - it is a
classic FE/BE arrangement. The corruption started as soon as I upgraded
all machines to XP/Office2003. The server at the time was NT4. It has
also been upgraded recently to Server 2003, but of course there was no
difference either way.

I'm using automatic updates for everything.

At the time of the workstation upgrade no new hardware was added. The
company has since moved offices and so there is a completely new
cabling infrastructure - again no change to the corruption frequency -
about twice a week.

Today I started working on an unbound version and made pretty good
progress. I think my view at the moment is that the less time that the
workstations are "talking directly" to the tables, the better off they
will be. The users will lose some functionality which I will need to
replace in other ways, but when all else fails, I don't know what else
to do.

Thanks again for your input
Dave

[David W. Fenton]

"Dave G @ K2" <Da************ *@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11******** *************@v 46g2000cwv.goog legroups.com:

Today I started working on an unbound version and made pretty good
progress. I think my view at the moment is that the less time that
the workstations are "talking directly" to the tables, the better
off they will be. The users will lose some functionality which I
will need to replace in other ways, but when all else fails, I
don't know what else to do.

I would consider that all wasted work if you don't hunt down what
went wrong in the first place. You have to get rid of the real
problem, rather than spending hours implementing changes that will
just reduce your chance of encountering the same problem.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Baz]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** ***********@127 .0.0.1...

"Dave G @ K2" <Da************ *@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11******** *************@v 46g2000cwv.goog legroups.com:

Today I started working on an unbound version and made pretty good
progress. I think my view at the moment is that the less time that
the workstations are "talking directly" to the tables, the better
off they will be. The users will lose some functionality which I
will need to replace in other ways, but when all else fails, I
don't know what else to do.

I would consider that all wasted work if you don't hunt down what
went wrong in the first place. You have to get rid of the real
problem, rather than spending hours implementing changes that will
just reduce your chance of encountering the same problem.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I couldn't agree more. In any case, I don't suppose that the unbound form
will in reality "talk" to the tables any less than the bound one does.