Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Access 2000 Database Replication

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Robert, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. Robert

    Robert
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    other.

    There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating the
    records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for the same
    Master ?

    If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates the
    record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to 5 and they
    replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence of replication &
    the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the best solution to this
    kind of data inconsistency ?

    Your advice is sought.

    Thanks
     
  2. Loading...


  3. SusanV

    SusanV
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Unless there's something else involved, such as low bandwidth between
    locations or some such, there is no reason to replicate this for only a few
    users - Access allows multiple connections simultaneously. The only
    limitation is if 2 users were trying to update the SAME record at the SAME
    time - then there would be a write conflict and someone's changes would be
    lost. Simply share the db in a central location, and make sure all users
    have full control on the folder it resides in as well as the db itself, and
    give them each a shortcut.

    --
    hth,
    SusanV


    "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:%231f27zThGHA.1856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    > There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    > other.
    >
    > There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating the
    > records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for the same
    > Master ?
    >
    > If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates the
    > record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to 5 and
    > they replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence of
    > replication & the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the best
    > solution to this kind of data inconsistency ?
    >
    > Your advice is sought.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
     
  4. Robert

    Robert
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Dear Susan,

    Thank you for your advice.

    However, I find that the existing database has already been converted to
    Master (Someone must have run the Create Replica before). Is there any way
    for me to change it back to a "normal" database ?

    Thanks
    "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uJyCSrXhGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    > Unless there's something else involved, such as low bandwidth between
    > locations or some such, there is no reason to replicate this for only a
    > few users - Access allows multiple connections simultaneously. The only
    > limitation is if 2 users were trying to update the SAME record at the SAME
    > time - then there would be a write conflict and someone's changes would be
    > lost. Simply share the db in a central location, and make sure all users
    > have full control on the folder it resides in as well as the db itself,
    > and give them each a shortcut.
    >
    > --
    > hth,
    > SusanV
    >
    >
    > "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:%231f27zThGHA.1856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >> There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    >> other.
    >>
    >> There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating
    >> the records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for the
    >> same Master ?
    >>
    >> If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates the
    >> record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to 5 and
    >> they replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence of
    >> replication & the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the best
    >> solution to this kind of data inconsistency ?
    >>
    >> Your advice is sought.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>

    >
    >
     
  5. SusanV

    SusanV
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Robert,

    I'm not certain you can convert it back - but perhaps this FAQ will help:
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282977/


    "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:u5MY$nqhGHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > Dear Susan,
    >
    > Thank you for your advice.
    >
    > However, I find that the existing database has already been converted to
    > Master (Someone must have run the Create Replica before). Is there any
    > way for me to change it back to a "normal" database ?
    >
    > Thanks
    > "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:uJyCSrXhGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >> Unless there's something else involved, such as low bandwidth between
    >> locations or some such, there is no reason to replicate this for only a
    >> few users - Access allows multiple connections simultaneously. The only
    >> limitation is if 2 users were trying to update the SAME record at the
    >> SAME time - then there would be a write conflict and someone's changes
    >> would be lost. Simply share the db in a central location, and make sure
    >> all users have full control on the folder it resides in as well as the db
    >> itself, and give them each a shortcut.
    >>
    >> --
    >> hth,
    >> SusanV
    >>
    >>
    >> "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%231f27zThGHA.1856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>> There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    >>> other.
    >>>
    >>> There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating
    >>> the records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for the
    >>> same Master ?
    >>>
    >>> If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates
    >>> the record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to 5
    >>> and they replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence of
    >>> replication & the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the best
    >>> solution to this kind of data inconsistency ?
    >>>
    >>> Your advice is sought.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  6. Robert

    Robert
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Dear Susan,

    I find that the following link is helpful
    http://www.trigeminal.com/utility.asp?ItemID=7#7

    Robert

    "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:O67ks3ViGHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > Hi Robert,
    >
    > I'm not certain you can convert it back - but perhaps this FAQ will help:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282977/
    >
    >
    > "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:u5MY$nqhGHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >> Dear Susan,
    >>
    >> Thank you for your advice.
    >>
    >> However, I find that the existing database has already been converted to
    >> Master (Someone must have run the Create Replica before). Is there any
    >> way for me to change it back to a "normal" database ?
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    >> news:uJyCSrXhGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>> Unless there's something else involved, such as low bandwidth between
    >>> locations or some such, there is no reason to replicate this for only a
    >>> few users - Access allows multiple connections simultaneously. The only
    >>> limitation is if 2 users were trying to update the SAME record at the
    >>> SAME time - then there would be a write conflict and someone's changes
    >>> would be lost. Simply share the db in a central location, and make sure
    >>> all users have full control on the folder it resides in as well as the
    >>> db itself, and give them each a shortcut.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> hth,
    >>> SusanV
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:%231f27zThGHA.1856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>>> There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    >>>> other.
    >>>>
    >>>> There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating
    >>>> the records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for
    >>>> the same Master ?
    >>>>
    >>>> If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates
    >>>> the record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to 5
    >>>> and they replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence of
    >>>> replication & the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the best
    >>>> solution to this kind of data inconsistency ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Your advice is sought.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  7. SusanV

    SusanV
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Excellent Robert - and thanks MUCH for sharing!


    "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:ufRDHWtiGHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > Dear Susan,
    >
    > I find that the following link is helpful
    > http://www.trigeminal.com/utility.asp?ItemID=7#7
    >
    > Robert
    >
    > "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:O67ks3ViGHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >> Hi Robert,
    >>
    >> I'm not certain you can convert it back - but perhaps this FAQ will help:
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282977/
    >>
    >>
    >> "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:u5MY$nqhGHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >>> Dear Susan,
    >>>
    >>> Thank you for your advice.
    >>>
    >>> However, I find that the existing database has already been converted to
    >>> Master (Someone must have run the Create Replica before). Is there any
    >>> way for me to change it back to a "normal" database ?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>> "SusanV" <svanallen@nospam-mvps.org> wrote in message
    >>> news:uJyCSrXhGHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Unless there's something else involved, such as low bandwidth between
    >>>> locations or some such, there is no reason to replicate this for only a
    >>>> few users - Access allows multiple connections simultaneously. The only
    >>>> limitation is if 2 users were trying to update the SAME record at the
    >>>> SAME time - then there would be a write conflict and someone's changes
    >>>> would be lost. Simply share the db in a central location, and make sure
    >>>> all users have full control on the folder it resides in as well as the
    >>>> db itself, and give them each a shortcut.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> hth,
    >>>> SusanV
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Robert" <Robert@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%231f27zThGHA.1856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> There is an Access 2000 database that we would like to share with each
    >>>>> other.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There will be total 4 people using it. If 3 of them are only updating
    >>>>> the records (Add new one), can I create three different replicas for
    >>>>> the same Master ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If 3 of them have to update existing records, for instance, A updates
    >>>>> the record to 3, B updates the value to 4 and C updates the record to
    >>>>> 5 and they replicate with the Master, it will depends on the sequence
    >>>>> of replication & the resulted record may be 3 / 4 or 5 ? What is the
    >>>>> best solution to this kind of data inconsistency ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your advice is sought.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     

Share This Page