By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,490 Members | 896 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,490 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

MS-Access 2003 Back End Maximum Users

P: n/a
I have a Back End database (split) that is on a smokin' hot machine
(dual processor, 2 gig RAM, XP Pro SP2) and I'm getting an error that
says the database (back end file) is "opened exclusively" by someone
else.

I looked at the number of sessions and noticed that when the number of
sessions were at 10, any new user launching the front end would get
the "exclusive" error message.

There is no security in place and no login required.

I thought there would be a higher limit than this.

Is there some kind of limit to the number of sessions or files opened
for the XP machine (with the back end database)? If so, can that
number be raised to allow more users to connect?

Also, if the limit is a Microsoft license issue, where they would want
you to buy a Server OS, how does this speak to all the development
over the years promoting "front end/back end" senario? Is it
understood, all this time, that these applications (as described in
Developer books, magazines and articles, etc.) would "conveniently" be
in an environment where there are 10 or less simultaneous users?
I'm only asking because, NONE of the training or advice ever said,
"oh, by the way, this multi-user situation can only have a max of 10
concurrent users, unless you are deploying on a MS-Server
environment..."

I'm not looking for a hundred, but 10! Geeze, that seems to be a bit
constraining, no?
Thanks in Advance

Feb 21 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
Is there some kind of limit to the number of sessions or files opened
for the XP machine (with the back end database)? If so, can that
number be raised to allow more users to connect?
the maximum number of connections supported on a network in
windows xp is 10. This limitation has nothing to do with
ms-access.
Also, if the limit is a Microsoft license issue, where they would want
you to buy a Server OS, how does this speak to all the development
over the years promoting "front end/back end" senario?
The issue is not related in any way, shape, or form. If you use a
server based edition of windows...no such limit exists.
I'm only asking because, NONE of the training or advice ever said,
"oh, by the way, this multi-user situation can only have a max of 10
concurrent users, unless you are deploying on a MS-Server
environment..."
Well, it is the same for any application. Internet connection sharing,
likely printers...whatever it is ..the limit is 10 users. It not a ms-access
issue, and it assumed that you have competent computer people.

I mean, where does it say when deploying ms-access that you have to
have enough disk space? It NEVER mentions disk space, but only
a fool would stand here and complain about the fact that the ms-access
manual does not state you need enough disk space to deploy your application.
Why is that detail left out? (answer: because we have to assume a certain
level of competence here).

I am VERY VERY hard pressed to have seen ANY company have 10+ users, and not
have some type of server for this environment. So, sure, I known many
companies with 3, or even 8 users same some money, and purchase a windows xp
edition in place of the server edition. however, any competent computer
support person setting up a network is going to know that you want something
better then the desktop edition of windows to server and support more then
10 users.

Is the 10 user number somewhat arbitrary? Sure, perhaps it is, but it comes
down to using the right horse for the right course.
I'm not looking for a hundred, but 10! Geeze, that seems to be a bit
constraining, no?
Hum, the 10 limit rarely comes up in this newsgroup. If you search posts, I
think we are luck to see one or two posts on this a year (and that with in
excess of 20,000+ posts on JUST ms-access alone in ONE MONTH!!!). So, it is
VERY rare to see this issue come up in this newsgroup. If this comes up so
rare
in this newsgroup..then you have to start thinking it not a big deal.

If you have a desktop machine, and
you are allowing 10 users to access resources on that machine, you likely
are risking stability, and users data. You likely are using that
desktop machine in a wrong way. I guess for some, 10 is tons of
users and in some environments you likely would be fired for allowing
10 users to access resources on your desktop machine.

I know if
we allowed a network person to setup a system for 20 users, and
the server was a desktop edition of windows..that dude would be
in heap of trouble...

By the time
a company with *COMPETENT* computer uses gets to having
a server with MORE then 10 users...it likely high time they use
the appropriate version of windows for that purpose..don't you think?
(well, actually..you don't think that!!!).

So, the network limit is rarely a problem, and it not a ms-access issue, but
will depend on the version of windows
you use.
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Feb 21 '07 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.