File paths and servers

[Tay]

I apologise in advance if this has already been covered (did a quick search, but haven't found anything), and if I've explained my problem badly.

For reasons known only to IS, I am not permitted to have my db on a central server where different offices can view their version of it. Therefore, I have 3 (soon to be 4) versions of the same db (split into FE and BE) sitting on different servers. I have permission to access the shared drives on these other servers to make changes.
My problem is that from time to time, I need to add things to the db's. So, I open an FE, and get the following message
'.....' isn't a valid path, make sure the path name is spelled correctly etc.

So far, I've just been taking a copy of the BE and re-linking so I can see the most up-to-date data. The problem that that raises is that once I've finished, I am then unable to relink the FE and BE, so I have to get someone from another office to do it, and this is a major pain. Especially as I should be leaving work in the near future and someone else will have to mess about doing this.

I know sod all about server stuff (you can tell from my post ), so there is probably a fairly simple way to get around this. If anyone does know a way, please enlighten me as I have no idea, and am fed up with having to keep spending ages on the phone to explain how to relink the tables at the other offices.

TIA

 

[Fizzio]

I stronly suggest that you explain your problem to IS. If you are running 4 BE and 4 FE (with potentially the same data), this has huge conflict implications. Also if you are doing comparative reporting, you will find it difficult to effectively extract the relevant data.

Explain to IS that you will actually be saving them server space and network traffic. They can ringfence a directory on the central server and map that drive in the startup profile of all your users so security (as an excuse) just does not wash. Ask them outright the reasons for not having it centrally held.

A good excuse is if the offices are geographically far distances apart as a high bandwidth line will not be cheap and they will likely want to squeeze otther things into that bandwidth.

I know this does not answer your question but I think IS needs to explain the reasons for not allowing this to happen and I'm sure we can come up with decent counterarguments

 

[Tay]

Thanks for the prompt reply Fizz.
I've been having this argument with ISG since March, when it was decided that other offices were to use my db. I wanted to have one large db that covered all areas North Kent, West and Mid, and then people at each office and at HQ could access my db. But the IS bod in charge said no. He said to have separate copies of the db (one for each area) and that maybe, one day, they could be merged if required. The FE's are virtually identical, as are the BE's. At first, if I needed to change anything I had to go to the other side of Kent to make the changes.
I then spoke to another IS person about my problems, and he suggested that I log a call with IS, get them to set up a folder on the central server and put all the separate versions of the db on there. So I logged the call. Weeks later, I'd heard nothing, kept pushing them and still got nowhere. I moaned to my boss, and he said to speak to the IS bod in charge to get them to hurry it up.
So I called him, and he blew a gasket wanting to know who had suggested this to me. He said that there is no room on the central server, it would cost them untold amounts of money to put the db's on there (?!?!?!?), and that Access performs badly and slowly across a network, so it would be better to retain them as separate copies, but I should have access to these other servers so I could make changes.
When I protested at the outset, the 'project manager' who was organising me to give the other offices access to my db, didn't take any notice - firstly the IS bod 'knows what he's talking about' and secondly, the project manager just wanted it in place to make him look good, and didn't particularly care about future repercussions.So I really don't think I'm going to get anywhere.

 

[Tay]

Any ideas? Anyone? You lot are a lot more knowledgeable than me!

 

[Fizzio]

The IS bod is right to an extent. an Access BE is not as efficient as a SQL BE (Pat would most likely be able to give you more help though) over a network.

Your main problem seems to be the relinking of the BE Db to their respective FE. If this is the case, try this link for a couple of code snippets that will help you to check the existing links (Fizzio pg1) then relink all your tables to a specified BE (Ghudson pg2).

hth

 

[Tay]

Cheers Fizzio, I'll have a go tomorrow. Currently sorting out 'dumb data' which I've just found in one of the other versions... Users. You try to make their lives easier, and they make yours harder!
Thanks again.