Size limitation more stringent with replication feature?
in [General]
|
Prev: DAO
Next: Page Header problem
From: Marina on 7 Jul 2008 03:24 We have a split Access db (back- and front-end) of 160Mb. After the last synchronization, it no longer allows synchronization. It gives an error: "There isn't enough memory to perform this operation, close unneeded programs and try again." It does not allow you to proceed with replication after the error (i.e. choose another back-end to synchronize to). Is it possible that Access has more stringent size limitations if you are using the replication feature? Or it it possible that someone in the team might have made changes to the back-end which 'broke' something?
From: Marina on 7 Jul 2008 03:34 P.S. No, we're not replicating anything but tables with their data (no forms, modules, etc.). "Marina" wrote: > We have a split Access db (back- and front-end) of 160Mb. After the last > synchronization, it no longer allows synchronization. It gives an error: > "There isn't enough memory to perform this operation, close unneeded programs > and try again." It does not allow you to proceed with replication after the > error (i.e. choose another back-end to synchronize to). Is it possible that > Access has more stringent size limitations if you are using the replication > feature? Or it it possible that someone in the team might have made changes > to the back-end which 'broke' something?
From: David W. Fenton on 7 Jul 2008 17:19 =?Utf-8?B?TWFyaW5h?= <Marina(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:B33252BB-66F9-4470-A54B-BA2B71D1A1B3(a)microsoft.com: > We have a split Access db (back- and front-end) of 160Mb. After > the last synchronization, it no longer allows synchronization. It > gives an error: "There isn't enough memory to perform this > operation, close unneeded programs and try again." It does not > allow you to proceed with replication after the error (i.e. choose > another back-end to synchronize to). Is it possible that Access > has more stringent size limitations if you are using the > replication feature? Or it it possible that someone in the team > might have made changes to the back-end which 'broke' something? Sounds like corruption of some form. I've had much larger replicated back ends than that. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Marina on 8 Jul 2008 03:08 Thanks, David. I think I've found the answer in one of your other posts. We are guilty of having copied back-ends on flash disks and using synchronization to take data between various 'mother ships'. Guess the database bombed out trying to keep track of dead replicas? To try and redeem the situation, I'm planning on moving what can be saved of the Access back-end over to SQL Server this weekend. > Sounds like corruption of some form. I've had much larger replicated > back ends than that. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ >
From: a a r o n . k e m p f on 8 Jul 2008 10:02
nope. Access just isn't designed to be a robust system. It hasn't been tested thorougly-- and it never will be. JET is merely an obsolete database. Nothing more, Nothing less. On Jul 7, 12:24 am, Marina <Mar...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > We have a split Access db (back- and front-end) of 160Mb. After the last > synchronization, it no longer allows synchronization. It gives an error: > "There isn't enough memory to perform this operation, close unneeded programs > and try again." It does not allow you to proceed with replication after the > error (i.e. choose another back-end to synchronize to). Is it possible that > Access has more stringent size limitations if you are using the replication > feature? Or it it possible that someone in the team might have made changes > to the back-end which 'broke' something? |