Hi Andrew,
Quote:
> I have certainly had people come to me in the past with performance
> problems, after they tried bumping up this value and it had no effect on
> their performance.
Agreed. Bumping this setting up would do nothing for performance. You can
point these folks to my Multiuser Applications paper in the future. It
includes lots of useful information even for single-user Access applications,
whether split or not:
Implementing a Successful Multiuser Access/JET Application
http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/mu...lications.html Quote:
> But it seems like increasing MaxLocksPerFile doesn't absorb too many system
> resources, so the trade-offs, whatever they are, are not severe.
I have not seen any adverse effects. I made this change several years ago,
on my Windows 2000 based PC, a PC that is over 6 years old; it has 512 MB of
RAM memory, considered low by today's standards.
I checked out your MVP profile. What, no pic?
Tom Wickerath
Microsoft Access MVP
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/ex...tributors.html
__________________________________________
"Andrew McLaren" wrote:
Quote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> No worries, I'll happily defer to your wisdom in this matter! I'm not an
> Access expert, by any stretch :-) If you say increase MaxLocksPerFile,
> that's good enough for me.
>
> I still think many users increment it for the *wrong* reasons. I have
> certainly had people come to me in the past with performance problems, after
> they tried bumping up this value and it had no effect on their performance.
> But it seems like increasing MaxLocksPerFile doesn't absorb too many system
> resources, so the trade-offs, whatever they are, are not severe.
>
> I never look at microsoft.public.access ... as I say, I'm not an Access
> expert :-) Although when pressed, I can speak SQL Server, DB2, and Oracle,
> with the best of them :-))
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au