We have a replicated database that is administered by two people. The
design master resides on a shared drive. However, only one of us is
able to open it as a design master. When the other tries to open it
on her machine it comes up as a replica. We are facing a big
challenge because the person who can open it as a design master is
leaving the company. How can we make sure that the remaining
administrator will be able to access the design master?
> We have a replicated database that is administered by two people.
> The design master resides on a shared drive. However, only one of
> us is able to open it as a design master.
Why does anyone need to open a Design Master? Are they making design
changes to the data tables? I assume you have a split architecture,
with a non-replicated front end with forms/reports/modules/etc. and
a replicated data MDB. If not, you need to do that ASAP.
If so, the DM should *not* be used for production editing. Use a
replica instead. The DM should be synched with the replica set only
as often as necessary to keep it from expiring (the default
retention period is 1000 days).
> When the other tries to open it
> on her machine it comes up as a replica.
That's odd if the other user is opening it "in place" on the
original machine. On the other hand, if she is copying it to a
different machine, it's no longer the same replica, DM or not.
> We are facing a big
> challenge because the person who can open it as a design master is
> leaving the company. How can we make sure that the remaining
> administrator will be able to access the design master?
First off, no one except the person responsible for maintaining the
structure of the database should be opening the DM. The rest of the
users should be using regular replicas.
It sounds like you are copying replicas around, which is the worst
possible thing you could do.
Provide more information and I can give you a better answer.

Signature
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
wallace.kirsten@gmail.com - 08 Feb 2007 00:54 GMT
On Feb 3, 12:29 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid>
wrote:
> wallace.kirs...@gmail.com wrote innews:1170432429.739061.76540@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
The two of us are responsible for maintaining the structure of the
database--which required periodically modifying the architecture etc
and then synching up with the front end replicas. The database resides
on a drive shared by the two of us. We have no idea why when I access
it from my machine it appears as a replica, but when he accesses it
from his machine it appears as the design master. We have the same
version of MS Access (2003), but I did notice that I have a service
pack patch on my version that he does not. Could this be causing the
problem. As I said, we're in real trouble because he's leaving the
company and his machine will be taken and wiped by IT. We need to
solve this mystery quickly.
David W. Fenton - 08 Feb 2007 01:43 GMT
> The two of us are responsible for maintaining the structure of the
> database--which required periodically modifying the architecture
> etc and then synching up with the front end replicas. The database
> resides on a drive shared by the two of us. We have no idea why
> when I access it from my machine it appears as a replica, but when
> he accesses it from his machine it appears as the design master.
Are you accessing it through a mapped drive letter, in place on the
other machine? Or via a UNC path? I don't see why a mapped drive
letter would matter, since that's always resolved to the UNC name,
but maybe it does cause a problem.
The issue I'm getting at is that if the replica thinks it's been
moved when you open it, then it will become a replica and no longer
be the design master.
> We have the same
> version of MS Access (2003), but I did notice that I have a
> service pack patch on my version that he does not. Could this be
> causing the problem. As I said, we're in real trouble because he's
> leaving the company and his machine will be taken and wiped by IT.
> We need to solve this mystery quickly.
Well, create a replica from the DM on your machine and in the
process transfer DM status to it. Of course, the other person won't
be able to make design changes to the replica on his machine any
longer.
I'm not exactly clear on what you're doing, though, so I may be
misdiagnosing the whole thing.
There should be no problems with storing a DM on a server and
working with it from any workstation connected to the server. That
also counts for when the "server" is actually just a workstation
sharing files.
The only thing I could think would be if you're not opening it in
place but actually moving it to your machine before trying to use
it. If you do that, yes, it will no longer be a DM, and you're to
blame for it losing DM status. The only way to move a DM legally is
by using the MoveReplica command in Replication Manager or in the
TSI Synchronizer. The other legal method is to transfer DM status
through a synchronization, but that's not a move, since it requires
two replicas already in place, and leaves the old DM in its original
location as a plain old replica.
I'm babbling in the hope that I'll say something that will strike a
chord and make sense to you so that it explains your problem. But it
may just be gibberish, after all. :)

Signature
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aaron Kempf - 05 May 2007 01:09 GMT
Jet Replication has been depecrated for a decade
move to SQL Server replication
> On Feb 3, 12:29 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> company and his machine will be taken and wiped by IT. We need to
> solve this mystery quickly.
David W. Fenton - 05 May 2007 23:37 GMT
> Jet Replication has been depecrated for a decade
You mean it was deprecated in 1997, i.e., 10 years ago? If so, why
did Microsoft make such significant improvements and enhancements to
it for Jet 4?
Jet Replication is only *now* being deprecated with the release of
A2K7, but not officially, only de facto. That could change with the
next version of Access.
> move to SQL Server replication
This is not useful advice in a Jet Replication newsgroup.
Of course, you're not here to offer useful advice -- you're just
trolling this newsgroup making replies to old posts in an attempt to
spread misinformation and stir up trouble.
Go away, Aaron.
Nobody believes a word you say.

Signature
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/