[Solved - sort of] Split database to avoid corruption
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:36 pm
I try to Keep It Simple... but a recent major hassle with data corruption makes me wonder... should I go to "split database" mode?
I "migrate" between two locations. And I thought that just carefully closing down Base, and THEN copying my .odb file to a thumb-drive would be sufficient to migrate my database between two machines. I must admit: I forgot to see if the Quickstarter was closed.
Didn't work. (Has done in the past, other Base dbs... but not this time.)
Didn't work TWICE.... When I moved from computer A to computer B, the database was mostly okay... but one (simple) form was displaying zeros where there should have been fixed length text data... in several columns. (Other forms worked okay. All the forms simply directly accessed a single table. Nothing "fancy". Simple.)
... and, after rebuilding the form (the data was still in the tables), when I moved back from B to A... the same thing happened again! Once I can live with. Two out of two... not good.
So... any ideas what is wrong with my migration procedure? Yes, I save the database before closing Base, and I close Base before using ordinary Windows tools to move the .odb from my hard drive, where I work on the database, to the thumbdrive, which is just for sneaker-netting the file. Used different directories, so my thumbdrive now has two copies of my .odb... one for database's trip from A to B, other with the .odb's state after work was done on B, this second copy for bringing the database back to A... so I don't think a faulty thumbdrive is the issue?
All "work" on the database done to/from hard drive. Thumbdrive just for transport.
===
An earlier enquiry on this subject gave rise to the suggestion that I move to using a "split database" configuration.
As I said... I like Simple. Enough things go wrong under that scheme. But I'll go to split, if I need too. But still...
Simple: It will only be me using the database. I will stick with the basic, comes-with-Base 1.8.x HSQLDB engine. I will keep paths consistent between the two machines I work with. Are there other things I can do, to deny Mr. Murphy opportunities?
If I've done all of that, do you think I will be better off, in the new "split database" environment? Are there other terms for that? When I searched the forum for prior discussions (!), I didn't find much.
By "split database", I mean I am eschewing the OpenOffice attempt to "help" by creating an archive in one .odb file, said archive holding "everything": Tables, forms, etc, etc.
By "split", I mean I am willing to operate in a less-easy-to-set-up, less easy to maintain, but... what do you think?... more robust? world where my tables, forms, etc are in separate files. As if I were using Base as a front end for, say, a MySQL database.... I just happen to be using the same engine as Base would use if I "went with" the simple, native, not-split .odb system.
===
So... and thank you for reading thus far...
Three questions:
a) Any idea why my .odb file went peculiar TWICE?
b) What do you think about the pros/ cons of going to "split database" operation?
c) How many of you use the "split database" approach, with the "comes with Base" HSQLB engine?
Thanks!
===
PS... after many, many hours working on the above issues, and bringing in things I've learned from the wider 'net...
Re- a) No one seems to know why my .odb did quite what it did.
Re- **c**)... I don't get the impression that many people do this
Re- b) .... so there doesn't seem to be a body of opinion to comment on the pros/ cons.
Some who DO do it, are enthusiastic, it must be said. And they seem knowlegeable.
I "migrate" between two locations. And I thought that just carefully closing down Base, and THEN copying my .odb file to a thumb-drive would be sufficient to migrate my database between two machines. I must admit: I forgot to see if the Quickstarter was closed.
Didn't work. (Has done in the past, other Base dbs... but not this time.)
Didn't work TWICE.... When I moved from computer A to computer B, the database was mostly okay... but one (simple) form was displaying zeros where there should have been fixed length text data... in several columns. (Other forms worked okay. All the forms simply directly accessed a single table. Nothing "fancy". Simple.)
... and, after rebuilding the form (the data was still in the tables), when I moved back from B to A... the same thing happened again! Once I can live with. Two out of two... not good.
So... any ideas what is wrong with my migration procedure? Yes, I save the database before closing Base, and I close Base before using ordinary Windows tools to move the .odb from my hard drive, where I work on the database, to the thumbdrive, which is just for sneaker-netting the file. Used different directories, so my thumbdrive now has two copies of my .odb... one for database's trip from A to B, other with the .odb's state after work was done on B, this second copy for bringing the database back to A... so I don't think a faulty thumbdrive is the issue?
All "work" on the database done to/from hard drive. Thumbdrive just for transport.
===
An earlier enquiry on this subject gave rise to the suggestion that I move to using a "split database" configuration.
As I said... I like Simple. Enough things go wrong under that scheme. But I'll go to split, if I need too. But still...
Simple: It will only be me using the database. I will stick with the basic, comes-with-Base 1.8.x HSQLDB engine. I will keep paths consistent between the two machines I work with. Are there other things I can do, to deny Mr. Murphy opportunities?
If I've done all of that, do you think I will be better off, in the new "split database" environment? Are there other terms for that? When I searched the forum for prior discussions (!), I didn't find much.
By "split database", I mean I am eschewing the OpenOffice attempt to "help" by creating an archive in one .odb file, said archive holding "everything": Tables, forms, etc, etc.
By "split", I mean I am willing to operate in a less-easy-to-set-up, less easy to maintain, but... what do you think?... more robust? world where my tables, forms, etc are in separate files. As if I were using Base as a front end for, say, a MySQL database.... I just happen to be using the same engine as Base would use if I "went with" the simple, native, not-split .odb system.
===
So... and thank you for reading thus far...
Three questions:
a) Any idea why my .odb file went peculiar TWICE?
b) What do you think about the pros/ cons of going to "split database" operation?
c) How many of you use the "split database" approach, with the "comes with Base" HSQLB engine?
Thanks!
===
PS... after many, many hours working on the above issues, and bringing in things I've learned from the wider 'net...
Re- a) No one seems to know why my .odb did quite what it did.
Re- **c**)... I don't get the impression that many people do this
Re- b) .... so there doesn't seem to be a body of opinion to comment on the pros/ cons.
Some who DO do it, are enthusiastic, it must be said. And they seem knowlegeable.