Access Database is getting corrupt again and again

Hi Shane,

Many thanks for the update, it is much appreciated, and somewhat reassuring to know that you are still actively working on it.

It would be really helpful, when dealing with frustrated users, for the date on the official bug report page to be updated at least monthly.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/access-reports-that-databases-are-in-an-inconsistent-state-%ef%bb%bf-7ec975da-f7a9-4414-a306-d3a7c422dc1d currently has: Last Updated: Aug 14, 2019

So it gets increasingly difficult to persuade IT staff that this remains the up to date solution.

It does seem almost incredible that after all this time you are still unable to reproduce such a widespread issue. Can this information also be added to the official page please? As well as helping to explain the long delay, it might motivate more users to help find out how to reproduce it. 

David Nye

http://www.dnye.co.uk/

Thanks Karl, you are absolutely right. I was referring to certain scenarios only, and should have said so.

...upgrading to SQL Server is the ideal way to go, with numerous advantages over an Access back end.

I've read this opinion and general advise many times. Sorry, but sometimes I feel obliged to add:

... and potentially numerous disadvantages.

There are many different situations in respect to clients, applications, distributions etc. especially in the Access business area. As consultant and developer I repeatedly have experienced how the change to SQL Server (mostly demanded by IT as principal not by exigency) has complicated if not deteriorated things for all parties.

Many of my clients are amateur Access developers (often at a rel. high level) who create and maintain databases for their needs or departments. SQL Server makes them much more dependent on the IT departement for which in turn they are unimportant. They are usually not part of IT and not integrated properly. Now they often get additional delays and friction losses with technical and organizational problems (wrong ODBC drivers, permissions etc.).

The independence (or being under the radar) with Access-only solutions isn't always and from every angle a problem but very often a big asset of the tool and for the users/developers.

Another wide spread and important fact is the lack of knowhow:

SQL Server demands an additional rel. high level of expertise that Access people often don't have or only partially, i.e. have to acquire themselves in a rough and ready way without a budget or training. Thereby with SQL Server they may get more problems and errors with performance, data types, drivers, backups etc. than what they get as advantages. I'm not talking about the great theoretical possibilites but about the real use I've often seen.

Even if you only deliver applications to clients it doesn't become necessarily easier to install, distribute, run and maintain them with SQL Server.

It very much depends on the possibilities you get to act and intervene and on the partners you have at the client.

I have migrated applications to SQL Server and do development work and training for clients who use SQL Server. It can be a really good thing. However, I don't subscribe to the general and "ideal" advise to migrate but to only do it if there is a real need and advantage, or let's say, to always consider the pros and cons as carefully as possible before you migrate.

I too rely on MS Access for my livelihood, with a number of clients in diverse industries. It seems that I am fortunate that all clients experiencing the issue so far have been able to apply the official MS work around and this has resolved the issue. I am not aware that the hack has caused significant adverse side effects, but perhaps the IT staff have resolved these without my involvement.

jondenney1, another alternative work around you might like to consider is to move the back end to a NAS device. I think one person has reported success with this, but from my understanding it seems pretty much guaranteed to resolve this corrupt database issue. A couple of my clients have done this in the past; the cheaper boxes do not perform as well as Windows Server, but it's a much easier solution than upgrading to SQL Server in most cases.

Having said that, upgrading to SQL Server is the ideal way to go, with numerous advantages over an Access back end.

David Nye

www.dnye.co.uk