Two people see same file differently

[jeffreydennis]

Access database, not split. Database resides on network server in city A. Database is accessed by users in city A and city B. User in city A sees a different file size than the user in city B although they are looking at the same time. Also, user in city A reports missing records after entering data but user in city B reports seeing all records as they should.

I am stumped. Any help much appreciated.

[Bob Fitz]

IMHO, Any db that has mutiple users should be split. One backend, which stores the data. One frontend on each users computer. I couldn't say if not being split is the cause of your problem, only that it will cause you problems sooner or later.

[orange]

I'm with Bob -suggest you split the database, Put the Tables on the server and separate front ends on each user's PC.

[PRMiller]

Agreed x 2. BTW, there may be some latency with your file server. I actually had two users in the same room who saw two different versions of a file on a network share. Here's a simple test: Have the user who sees the appropriate database size create and save a blank text file on the network share. If there is much of a delay (>2 seconds?) before the other user sees it, it is most likely a network issue.

[jeffreydennis]

Thak you PR Miller for actually trying to address the issue. I suspect network but had no idea how to test it. I now have something to go on.

[Bob Fitz]

Have you split the db yet?

[jeffreydennis]

That option was originally presented to the client and ruled out by them. Out of curiousity, why do yoy think splitting the DB will solve this issue or are you presenting it as just a best practice?

[orange]

I don't think splitting the database is a client option. It's a little bit like asking the client if they'd like a Mac to run their Access on.
You can get by for a while, but sooner or later you'll find yourself with corruption/performance or maintenance issue.
Do you let the client decide on whether or not to normalize database tables? Or include an Error Handling?

For info related to splitting, corruption, performance etc see

http://www.kallal.ca/Articles/split/index.htm
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corruption/symptoms.htm
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/splitapp/overview.htm
http://www.accessmvp.com/twickerath/.../multiuser.htm
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm
http://www.fmsinc.com/MicrosoftAccess/Performance.html


Note: Your issue may be related to server/network latency. It may be related to the depth of the folder where the file is located etc etc, but
a multi user environment without a split database has been an identified source of many errors and performance for several years and versions.
If you find a solution to your issue, we just ask that you share it to benefit others.

[jeffreydennis]

Clients have a funny way of deciding what their options are or are not.

[Bob Fitz]

That option was originally presented to the client and ruled out by them.?

Yes, but I'm not sure why. The OP said

I am stumped. Any help much appreciated.

Out of curiousity, why do yoy think splitting the DB will solve this issue or are you presenting it as just a best practice?

I do not think that it will cause the stated problem but I think that it might do, just because of the many strange thing that I've read in many Access forums over the years when a db is used in this way.

Of course the OP can dismiss the advice if he/she wishes to. We will still try to help when, not if, they return with corruption problems.

[orange]

Clients have a funny way of deciding what their options are or are not.

At some point you have to advise clients - pros and cons of certain decisions. Sometimes you have to walk away.

Perhaps one option is -- Just ignore the difference it is most likely a network issue.

But at some point, when you have a major corruption issue, they probably won't go for the ignore it option.

Playing database, and designing/developing/operating a business critical database are quite different.

[jeffreydennis]

Did I not say that they had rejected that option earlier? Would that not indicate that they had been "advised"? I advised, they declined. You work with what you have.

They think they have it isolated to operator error.

[Bob Fitz]

If you were a driving instructor and your client insisted on wearing a blindfold while driving down the road, would you want them as a client?