Share violations with 0 open files???

[David Collier-Brown]

Russell Senior wrote:
> Rafal> Did log level 3 or above (5 for instance) show something more ?
> 
> I haven't had a chance to capture anything at the higher log levels
> yet.  Maybe tomorrow.  I'll post again when I've had a chance.  In the
> mean time, any clues would be helpful.

	Only a clue: clients may keep share-type locks
	open between open-close pairs, reasoning that
	they have to provide locks between an open-read-close
	and an open-write-close.  This **may** be the case
	with database-like programs.

	HOWEVER!
	<Unix-bigot mode>
	Access can run as a single-user database, using filesystem
	locks to allow several individuals to not destroy each others'
	updates, but this does NOT work well. In fact, it scales
	so badly that it becomes unusable from load at about the time
	it becomes invaluable to the organization using it, which then
	has to buy a backend real database, and use Access as an "access 	
	method".  I refer to this scenario as the "free sample of crack
	cocaine" marketing approach.
	</Unix-bigot mode>

	You should consider using backend that supports ODBC, and use
	Access as a high-quality user interface.  A colleague
	reccomends msql... there are others you might consider.

--dave



	
> 
> --
> Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
> seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
>                          profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
>                          extremely unusual.' ''

-- 
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify 
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering  |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecb at canada.sun.com