MDB - vs- ADPs: reliability?

M

Mark Burns

Are Access 2002 (or later) ADPs as prone to database corruption problems as
MDBs are?
....and if so, what sorts of problems, how often to they happen, and how
recoverable are they?

....or is it that ADPs and MDBs are pretty much te same thing, only the ADPs
don't store the data - only the programming objects/database and therefore
have similar reliability problems...?
 
A

Albert D. Kallal

Are Access 2002 (or later) ADPs as prone to database corruption problems
as MDBs are?
...and if so, what sorts of problems, how often to they happen, and how
recoverable are they?

...or is it that ADPs and MDBs are pretty much te same thing, only the
ADPs don't store the data - only the programming objects/database and
therefore have similar reliability problems...?
Click to expand...

I would say that if you follow the recommend practice and use a split
database for mdb, and place the FE on each computer, or you use a ADP, and
again place the FE on each computer..then there would be little..if any
difference in reliability here.

however, even when you use the very reliable sql-server, and a adp..if you
don't place the adp on EACH workstation, then your FE will corrupt. So, to
get reliable setup, you simply don't allow multiple users into the same
FE...and little if any differences applies to this rule concerning a MDB FE,
or a ADP FE.....
 
Top