Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,178

    Unanswered: Catastrophic Error Message

    Access has recently started periodically giving me a very worrisome message:

    Could not save; currently locked by another user. (Error 3046)

    The problem? I am working on a network, but there is no other user in this database. In fact, I'm not even trying to save anything! Also, my queries and tables become invisible, and Access even tells me it can't find my hidden tables. I have to close Access and reopen it, which helps for about two hours or so.

    I'm on Windows XP Pro and Access 2002 w/SP3.

    Please advise.

    Thanks,

    Sam

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,713
    Sam,

    Access seems to think that your DB is still open from another session ... At this point I'd advise you to make a new db and import everything over from the old file and then nuke that old file ... May it rest in peace (or pieces) ... ;D
    Back to Access ... ADO is not the way to go for speed ...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    268

    I too occassionally get this error

    As for the tables, queries etc. gone Try the home key to see if that rectifies the situation.

    As for records being locked. I encounter the ambiguous error of 'catastrophic error' when running two consecutive significant update queries.

    How I handle the error is to do add some code to do a brief pause. say 1 second, then it seems to allow the code to continue, no more record locks.

    Just my experiences.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,178
    Thanks, guys.

    Mike, I already did that, after I posted the problem, and I have no more problem on that score. However, there's an important difference: the new file is on my hard drive, vs my original db which was on the network. I was afraid that there might be a server connection to the problem, so I'm a bit hesitant to put the new file back on the network. Do you think there's any validity to that thought?

    Of course I could keep up both files for a time, but they're quite hefty and I don't want to do that unnecessarily...

    Thanks,

    Sam

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Landy
    Thanks, guys.

    Mike, I already did that, after I posted the problem, and I have no more problem on that score. However, there's an important difference: the new file is on my hard drive, vs my original db which was on the network. I was afraid that there might be a server connection to the problem, so I'm a bit hesitant to put the new file back on the network. Do you think there's any validity to that thought?

    Of course I could keep up both files for a time, but they're quite hefty and I don't want to do that unnecessarily...

    Thanks,

    Sam
    How are you using the BE db again? Is it linked to the FE? It's an acknowledged fact that linked DB's across a network is a slow-assed beast ... The other thing to consider is that when using this method (linking) you still establish a connection across the network that is subject to severing (or other intermittant interruption) ... But then, that also goes for DAO or ADO connecting also ... So, to your question: YES

    Recommendation: If you're gonna host the db on the network, make the BE and FE disconnected. Use ADO or DAO to do your connection dirty work for you ...

    Question: What is the backbone speed of your network? How much traffic do you have on it?
    Back to Access ... ADO is not the way to go for speed ...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,178
    Good morning, Mike,

    H'mm, let's see. I'm not the network administrator, so I don't know much about traffic or speed. We only have about 35 users here (including the 10 people in the warehouse with their intermittent usage), and a pretty robust server system with mirror imaging, so whatever that means it means, I'm afraid.

    About my DB: I don't have a separate FE/BE; it's a self-contained database which relies on ODBC connections to link to several critical networked Visual FoxPro database files. I'm using Access 2002, which disallows direct linking to VFP files. In the database code itself I use DAO. I also link to an occasional Excel file across the network.

    By the way, between development and production usage (I need to run the entire program 4 times a week on average), the DB is about 18 months old. Maybe it's simply due for a crashing and re-creation?

    I appreciate your interest,

    Sam

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Landy
    Good morning, Mike,

    H'mm, let's see. I'm not the network administrator, so I don't know much about traffic or speed. We only have about 35 users here (including the 10 people in the warehouse with their intermittent usage), and a pretty robust server system with mirror imaging, so whatever that means it means, I'm afraid.

    About my DB: I don't have a separate FE/BE; it's a self-contained database which relies on ODBC connections to link to several critical networked Visual FoxPro database files. I'm using Access 2002, which disallows direct linking to VFP files. In the database code itself I use DAO. I also link to an occasional Excel file across the network.

    By the way, between development and production usage (I need to run the entire program 4 times a week on average), the DB is about 18 months old. Maybe it's simply due for a crashing and re-creation?

    I appreciate your interest,

    Sam
    Hmmm ... It just sounds like the good, old-fashioned Access corruption ... That a good round of compact & Repair should take care of (or worst case: create new and drag everything over) which has been covered ...

    Access was never stable to begin with and with the continual piling on of features, probably won't ever be ...
    Back to Access ... ADO is not the way to go for speed ...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,178
    Thanks, Mike,

    I guess I'll just put the new DB on the network and take my chances.

    Sam

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,178
    Thanks, Mike,

    I guess I'll just put the new DB on the network and take my chances.

    Sam

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •