I am new to a new role at a company where they are using MS Access with a MySQL db which is running in server that's physically in our office behind our private network. I have been hired to develop an entire new application to bring the company up to modern standards. As we move features/modules to the new Angular/NodeJs App I am writing, users still need to utilize the UI provided by MS Access to the new production database that will be on AWS Lightsail.
However, when I change the configurations of Ms Access, OBDC connections to point to the AWS Lightsail MySQL Db, everything(reports especially) in the MS Access UI becomes slower than when it was being pointed to the MySQL Db here in office in-network.
I am going to the "Linked Table Manager" and changing the "Connection String".
Somewhere I read I should make sure SSLMODE is disabled to remove any performance issues.
DSN=AWS_Dev;DATABASE=ECSDataTables;PORT=3306;SERVER=IP_ADDRESS;SSLMODE=DISABLED;
I went through the normal "ODBC Data Source Administrator" in Windows and added the MySQL AWS host, user/pass as normal.
I have done extensive research and have found several sources, but none are really helping.
I have been asked not to spend too much time trying to fix/optimize anything in MS Access as my focus should be on the new application, but it's hard to believe that a simple switch of MySQL database can have such impact. In the new Angular/NodeJs application, everything runs very fast, so I know it's not the AWS MySQL db or anything.
Am I missing something, any configurations I should be doing in Ms Access? I have not used VB in about a decade, so I am hoping something can be done without the need of too much technical background in this matter.
Thank You.
Well, the issue is that your local area network (LAN) is about 10 times, or more faster then your internet connection.
Your low cost office network is very likely to be a 1 gig bit network. (100 base T is rare).
However, your internet high speed connection is likely say 10 mbits. So, you going from 1000 to 10 - that is 100 times slower. So, 3 seconds now becomes 300 seconds.
I mean, with such a slower connection speed, then no surprise should exist here.
What you can do is for any report that is a complex join of client side sql is convert the sql query to a server side view, link to that view. Now use that view as the base source for the report. And of course existing VBA filers that you always use (right???) to launch a report will now only pull the data it needs down the network pipe. Access reports (or forms) only pull down what you ask - not the whole table. So, any filter you have (use the where clause of the open report command) will be respected. So, you either have to pull less data, or simply find something with a similar speed rating as your local area network (and such high speed internet is rare).
The LAN vs WAN concept and speed issue is outlined in this article:
http://www.kallal.ca//Wan/Wans.html
While the above article is very old, the speed differences of the internet are about 10x faster today, but so is the local area that's gone from 100 baseT to 1 gig bit base.
So, things are slower because you are working with a VASTLY slower connection speed. Slower is slower!!!
Edit
While as noted, access will only pull what you ask, the case where access client does a poor job is sql queries that involve multiple tables - often the client will mess up what it sends server side. As noted, the solution in this case is to adopt views server side. This means you move the client side query that drives the report to a view, and link to that view. You not gain much performance for a single table query, but for any report based on complex (multi-table joins), then using a view will force the sql and "join work" to occur sql server side, and this can result in huge performance gains.
Well this is a case where limited knowledge just produces worst results than the expected ones.
Over the years top DBAs just "hate" Ms Access... they just see only problems,issues you name it ...the end sentence is "switch to a real Database engine".
Well this has created a faulty assumption that MsSQL, MySQL,Oracle, PostGreSQL and the rest database engines are somewhat a "magic pill"...you just switch the BE to one of the above DBE and all your problems will get resolved...just like that.
DBE --Database Engine (if you would like to call somewhat else feel free)
WRONG
Ms Access follows a different philosophy from the DBE and it does its job damn well given all its shortcoming and the major fact that is a file based DBE.
Switching to another DBE will give amazing performance IF and ONLY IF you respect the fact that you are not working with Access ....just don't treat e.g. MySQL as your file repository and DON'T just link the tables and expect everything to go well...
Want to keep blaming Access ...just switch over to another platform (.NET,PHP,Js , Java...make your pick) ...and do a small application that pulls ALL of your data in a single go like you do with Access . it will certainly crash or go Not responding...
So stop blaming Access ...start reading on how to make the most of two worlds and i am pretty sure that the results will amaze you....but again i must stress out that this is not a "magic pill" solution ...it involves a LOT of work ...planning,data manipulation,normalization,code changes and above all change of philosophy..
I would recommend starting the journey by picking this book : https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Access-Developers-Guide-Server/dp/0672319446 ( i don't want complains about its Old and MsSQL ...just read first and complain later)
Also take a look at an old benchmark alike video i made some years ago : https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tsgiannis_a-small-demo-of-connecting-ms-access-fe-to-activity-6392696633531858944-dsuU
Last but not least....years ago i was making some tests to see what the "magic pill" would do to my company's applications....the simplest test of all...
A simple table with few fields but with around 8 millions records...just display it
Access BE (local)--> It would run in 1-2 seconds...that's fast
Access BE (Network share)--> It would run in a few seconds...not so fast but it was usable
MSSQL BE (linked table)--> somethimes it get the results sometimes it wouldn't....slow...really slow ..like you make a coffee and go for a small walk.
MySQL BE (linked table)--> it never finished...timeout of "Not Responding"
PostGreSQL BE (linked table)--> it never finished...timeout of "Not Responding"
So stop blaming Access...start working and get amazed....
Related
I'm always with my Access app..
As far as I know, when I execute a sql clause to my back end (accdb file), say
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE id=1;
It gets filtered on the back end, then just one record is transmitted over the network.
My question is, when I open a form bounded with a query (no where clause) using a filter parameter, like
DoCmd.OpenForm "Form",,, strFilter
how many records are transmitted on the network? They get filtered like that sql clause or they get filtered locally, meaning a big pile of data has to be sent over the network?
I'm concerned about this because I have many subforms bounded to queries, then I open them in the main forms with filter parameter. And of course, the network here is not very good.
EDIT: The environment of my app is on a factory with no local server. All network/information thing is in company's headquarter 300km away, maybe a WAN.
Except upgrading to SQL server alike, do I have other solutions to make it more reliable? I've heard of something 'Citrix', I happened to have a 'Citrix Neighborhood Agent Program' in my sys tray, can it host my app to make it faster?
DoCmd.OpenForm "Form",,, strFilter
how many records are transmitted on the network?
As many as match your strFilter condition. So, if WHERE id=1 returns one row in the earlier SELECT query, and strFiler = "id=1", that OpenForm will open the form with that single row as its record source.
The WhereCondition parameter is also available for DoCmd.OpenReport, and operates the same way as with OpenForm, which you also may find useful.
Edit: You should have an index to support the WHERE criteria whether you build it into the query or do it "ad hoc" with OpenForm WhereCondition. With an index the database engine will read the index to find which rows match, then retrieve those rows. So retrieval will be more efficient, and therefore faster, than forcing the engine to read every row to determine which of them include matches.
When Jet/ACE requests data from a file server, the first thing it needs is the database header information, which has data structures describing the structure of the data file. This is information is requested once in your Access session, so it's really only an issue at startup.
When you then request a record, Jet/ACE uses the metadata it has about the file to request the relevant index pages for the table(s) involved, then uses those indexes to determine the minimum number of data pages to request.
With properly structured indexing and filters on primary keys the amount of data retrieved is actually quite minimal.
However, it's still going to be more than will allow proper response times across a WAN. Access was designed for use across a wired LAN, back in the days when the networking standard was 10BaseT (10Mbps). Anything less than that and you'll have problems. WiFi is right out, as well, but not because of bandwidth, but because of the unreliability of the connections.
When you need to support users remotely, the easiest solution is to host the Access application on a Windows Terminal Server. WTS is built on technology licensed from Citrix, so you'll often see the whole concept described as Citrix, but your default WTS setup is quite different from a Citrix installation. You have to pay extra for Citrix, and it gives you a lot of different features.
I've used WTS without Citrix in many environments and frankly can't see what the justification would be for Citrix (except when you have to support large numbers of remote users, i.e., in the range of 100 or more). WTS is installed on every Windows Server starting with Windows 2000 and is very easy to set up and configure.
The second easiest solution, in my opinion, is to upsize the back end to a server database and then rewrite for efficiency to insure you're using the server as much as possible and not pulling too much data across the wire.
A third solution would be Sharepoint, but I'm not experienced with that. It is definitely the direction that MS is pushing for Access apps in distributed setups, but it's quite complex and has a whole lot of features. I wouldn't recommend plunging into it without lots of preparation and significant corporate support.
Actually, with Access, there is not really a true back-end as there is with a bona-fide client-server engine like SQL Server or Oracle or Postgres. Access uses a shared-file architecture where the client program itself "owns" chunks of the file on disk, as distinct from a message-passing architecture where the client program sends requests for data to a back-end engine process running on a server where that process "owns" the data. With shared-file, all work occurs on the client, so it is possible for freight-train-loads of data to be brought across the wire if the database file resides on a different machine.
When you ask Access for data, it often reads a lot more data from the MDB file on disk and caches at the local client a lot more data than what your statement has asked for. Access tries to do this intelligently, anticipating your needs. "Now that I'm here", Access says, "I might as well make the expensive trip to disk worthwhile and grab a sh*tload of data". Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Access basher and have been using it for more than 10 years, from back in the days when LAN bandwidth was 10mbit/sec. Access is very good for some things. But Access can gobble up bandwidth like you wouldn't believe.
Read up on "keysets" in Access.
P.S. I am not the same Tim as the Tim who left you a comment.
Some useful links:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd942824(v=office.12).aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/209126
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/112112
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/128808
I haven't used Access since high school, years ago.
What kind of problem does it solve well, or even better than a web app backed by a real RDBMS?
Is it still actively developed? Or is it pretty dead to MS already?
What are its biggest limitations?
Update:
What resource shall one use to learn how to develop a MS Access solution for small business?
Thanks
First and foremost, Access IS a real RDBMS. What it is isn't is a client server RDBMS.
The only implications of this are that there is a throttle on the number of simultaneous connections and the security of the data needs careful thought.
Amongst other things, Access is also an IDE that uses VBA as its language.
This means that in Access you can write Front End apps that link to either a SQL Server back end, an Access back end, or a SharePoint back end. So it is one very versatile cookie.
It's limitations are:
Security: if you are using an Access Back End, take note that it doesn't have the built in security of a client server database. In any app, security is a function of the cost and the requisite secrecy of the data.
Number of simultaneous connections. if you are not careful, Access will struggle with more than 10 people trying to update data simultaneously. You can extend that, but you need to know what you are doing to guarantee results. to put a number to it, lets say 50 simultaneous connections.
Like most databases, it is liable to corruption.
NOTE: when referring to Access as a database, you should really be referring to the "database engine", JET or ACE, depending on the version and, for Access 2007+, dictated by the file format that you use. In other words, if you are storing data in Access tables, you are using either JET or ACE. However, if you are using LINKED TABLES, that are in, for example, SQL Server, then you are not, strictly speaking, using JET or ACE security for those tables.
Access SQL doesn't allow you to write stored procedures (you can write functions in VBA), in the sense that Access SQL only allows imperative statements as opposed to procedural statements (eg, control flow statements). You can introduce some "procedural code" using VBA functions, but this is very different to using SQL statements.
You backup the file itself. You can write code to do this at the click of a button.
Security is always a function of cost. If you have data that is worth more than 100,000 US$ (either in loss of rights or legal liabilities if it is stolen and you have not shown due diligence in protecting it), then Access is probably not the answer. 100,000 is an arbitrary figure. The precise figure will depend on whether the data is insurable and the consequences of it being lost or stolen.
Ie, if the value of the data is the driving concern, then definitely don't use Access as a Back End. Whether you use it as a Front End, is a matter of budget. For US$5000 I have written apps that are still running 10 years later. They now need to port the back end to SQL Server because the volume of sensitive data has grown.
Access, when used within the above constraints AND when used by a professional Access developer (rather than some disgruntled fool who thinks he should be using "cooler" technologies), will produce very sophisticated, sturdy and reliable applications at a 10th of the cost of other systems. In such scenarios, Access is a total NO BRAINER.
Anything else will cost more, take longer and will only be as good as the person who writes the code and designs the UI.
I have an application (the first one I ever built in Access) that has run without problems for 10 years. We have extended it massively. I have moved into ASP.NET MVC, but Access is where I hail from and I have seen it work well.
So in summary: the number of users is relevant and the value or liabilities implicit in the data are the other deciding factor.
If the number of simultaneous users is low and the value/implicit liabilities of the data is low, then the choice is definitely Access.
However, get yourself a good developer.
EDITS/CLARIFICATIONS:
The above answer, like all answers, was written in haste in the middle of a working day. Some statements were a bit glib and generic and not written with a suitable degree of precision... However, when the comments made by others are reasonable, the author of the answer should edit the post and clarify.
1/
Access is a holy trinity. It is an IDE for writing forms and reports and functions to use in your queries. It "includes" a database engine (JET/ACE). It provides a Visual Interface onto the database engine that allows you to design queries, set up relationships between tables, etc.
It is usually referred in its many roles as just Access, but precision does help to learn Access and get the most out of it.
2/
Access can't use stored procedures in the sense that Access SQL can only use imperative statements rather than the procedural ones (eg, control flow statements). There is a reason, I have always thought, for calling them stored PROCEDURES.
3/
Not every Access app costs exactly 100,000. Nor is the budget of an Access app equal to the value of the data. That is obvious. The idea I was trying to convey was that if the data is worth more than a sum that can be reasonably insured, then don't use Access. Is that figure 100,000? According to Luke Chung and Clint Covington, ex program manager for Access, yes, but don't take their word for it. It really just means "a lot of money".
I have written an app for Medical Charities that still runs 10 years later after an initial budget of 5000. They have probably invested another 20,000 over the years. That kind of app is the Access sweet spot.
It all depends really, I will give you a quick example that happened to me recently. At work they needed a small system to capture some records from a group of about 15 users and pass about 15% of those records to another team of about 5 or so to do additional tasks on those records. This was a one off project that was going to last about 4 months.
The official IT solution was of course a web app with a SQL server backend coming in at about £60,000. As they had no SQL server space available and the budget was very small I decided to go with an unbound access database using JET to store the data.
In this example access/JET was the right choice, now if this had been a long term system to support 500 users of course the web app would be the way to go. Its horses for courses at the end of the day and people should not let their prejudices effect their business decisions.
Ah. Never. Point. Too many limitations in general. Backups are problematic, stability CAN be problematic. Especially if you compare access (file share daabase) against web ap you are in for a world of pain pretty much in every scenario.
Access is usable for small single place db stuff (loading data before moving it off to a SQL Server) or a front end for SQL Server (i.e. access not actually storing any data). The later is also pretty much the direction MS is taking access to - a front end technology.
My knowledge is quite old now, but it always used to be very good for reports - very quick, powerful, and much easier than, e.g. Crystal Reports.
If you just want to hack something out quickly, it's probably a bit easier to do at least some kinds of applications with Access than a web front end with a SQL (or whatever) backend. It is still being developed (Access 2010 was release within the last month or two, if memory serves).
I haven't used the new version to say for sure, but the last time I did any looking, it seemed like new editions were mostly updating the look to go along with the latest version of office, cleaning up semi-obvious problems and bugs, but not a whole lot more than that. I wouldn't say it's dead, but I don't see much to indicate that it's really one of Microsoft's top priorities either.
Trying to pin down it's biggest limitations is hard. The "JET Red" storage engine it's based around doesn't scale well at all -- but it was never really intended to. Its basic design is intended to conflate the application with the data being stored, so it's relatively difficult to just treat it as raw data to be used for other purposes. I don't know if it's still the case, but at least at one time, the database format was also fairly fragile -- file corruption was semi-common, and in most cases about the only hope of recovery was a backup file (which meant, at best, losing everything that had happened since the last backup -- and some forms of corruption weren't immediately obvious, so corrupt backups sometimes happened as well).
It comes down to this: if one of the Wizards built into access can produce exactly what you want, or at least something really close, and you only ever need to support a few users with the result, it might be a reasonable choice in a few situations. If that doesn't (all) apply, there are almost certain to be better alternatives.
The Jet database engine used by Access is considered deprecated by Microsoft, though it is still supported. The limits of an .mdb database and the newer .accdb type are described here.
Link
Even SQL Server Express would be better in almost every case.
Someone with very limited knowledge of RDBMS/programming can still throw a quick frontend together in Access (Ideally using an external database), that's really the main use for it.
I am developing a database with about 10 tables in it. Basically it will be used in 2 or 3 distant geographical locations (let's call them A,B and C). The desired work flow will be as follows:
A,B and C should always have the same database. So when A does any changes he should be able to send those changes over to B and C. Emailing the entire mdb file doesnt make sense since its 15+mb in size. So I would like to send the new additional records and changes only to B and C. The changes B and C make should also be reflected to the other repective parties. How can I do this?
I have a few ideas in mind but cont know how to implement it.
solution 'A' - export the data tables only into a xls file and email that. But the importing of the tables into the mdb file could be a bit complex right? and the xls is file will also become bigger and bigger with time.
solution 'B' - try extract just the changes and email only the new parts? (but how to extract just those)
Solution 'C' - find some way of syncing all users onto the same database(storage) location. I was thinking of a front/back end splitting solution by storing the tables in a shared drive in the parent company's server (which is also overseas). But the network connection between locations is very slow, and I dont know how much bandwidth is needed for this.
Any recomendations would be most welcome!
In regard to sources for information on replication, start with my Jet Replication Wiki.
But I would never recommend Jet replication for your scenario. The only environment where I currently recommend it (and I've been doing replicated apps since 1997 and still have several in production use) is for supporting laptop users who have to work with live data in the field disconnected from any network, and return to the home office and synch direct with the mother ship.
The easiest solutions with an Access application would be hosting the app on Windows Terminal Server/Citrix and the users would run it over a Remote Desktop Connection, or using Sharepoint. The Terminal Server/Citrix solution has no accomodation for disconnected users, but Sharepoint can accomodate offline usage and synch changes when connected. Access 2010 and Sharepoint 2010 provide a host of new features, including better schema design, the equivalent of triggers and greatly improved peformance for large Sharepoint lists, so it's a no-brainer to me that if you choose Sharepoint you'd want to use A2010 and Sharepoint 2010.
While it's possible to do what you want with Jet Replication, it requires a lot of setup on the server and client ends, and is relatively fragile (not in terms of data integrity if you're using indirect replication (as you should), but in terms of network reliability) -- there are too many moving parts and too many failure points.
Windows Terminal Server/Citrix is by far the simplest, with the fewest moving parts and completely centralized administration, and works very well for a relatively small investment.
Sharepoint is more complicated than WTS/Citrix, but is less complex and more centralized than a Jet Replication solution.
If it were me, I'd probably go with WTS/Citrix if there was no need for disconnected usage, but I'd be salivating over trying out A2010/Sharepoint 2010. If there was a need for disconnected usage, then I'd definitely go the Sharepoint route.
You want to use "Jet Replication". See
MSDN Search for jro at http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US?query=jro&ac=8
MSDN Search for access replication at http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US?query=access%20replication&ac=3
It's been some time since I did it, but the indirect method of replication worked well for me in a similar situation.
It takes something to set up. The documentation used to be appalling for it, but I found articles written by Michael Kaplan (aka Michka) that walked me through how to do it.
If your final environment is going to be fairly stable, then use Access the whole way. If not, then I'd urge you to take HansUp's advice and go with SQL Server or SharePoint.
Do note: if you're working in Access 2007 or later, replication is not directly supported, and you'll have to roll-your-own bits and pieces. If you're using an earlier installation, you'll be fine, but allow time for some head-scratching.
I have a website (www.soltrago.com) wghere I use a .mdb microsoft access database to retrieve data when the pages loads. I use a dns less connection to connect to the database. My question is how many simultaneous connections can I have to my webpage? Like how many people per second can view my webpage? Thanks!
There is no single answer to this question.
For instance, I could say... 25, and it could be true, in the sense that in some cases, you can run 25 simultaneous users against the database.
Or I could say 150, and it could be true.
The problem is, I could also say 75, and it would not be true, basically because the way you're using the database has serious performance problems.
Or I could say 2, and it wouldn't be true either, because every connection you make locks the same data, and thus you end up serializing every access because every other user has to wait for the first one to complete his transaction and thus unlock the data.
How many users is a function of the upper limit of the database engine, and the way you're using the database. The page I linked to in my comment says the upper limit is 255. I can't vouch for that, but it sounds plausible, simply because access isn't meant to be a multi-user database. Sure, it handles it, but it's not meant to serve thousands of users.
Your best bet is actually to get some kind of load tester application and see when your application either starts having serious performance problems, or perhaps even just crashes.
Other than that, nobody can tell you the right answer.
I wonder why you don't just use SQL Server Express Edition instead - a far more scaleable engine, but still free.
(edit)
As an added bonus; when your site "takes off" and you need more grunt (bigger, more CPUs, more memory, more failover, clustering, etc), you just buy a bigger box and a SQL Server license and you're set to go; you don't have that luxury with mdb.
Your web app probably has just one connection to the MS Access file. The number of web pages that can be served is different.
Your title and question do not match.
MS Access is not an database engine in the server sense. You do not prepare a query, submit to an engine, get a result (say per web page). This scales well because it's all stateless.
In this case, it's basically a structured file (.mdb) recognised by Jet (used by msaccess.exe) so your web app has the file open when it starts.
We are looking to have about 35-40 people writing to an access database via script on a shared drive. The metrics break down to them needed to write about 3-7 times an hour. Would Access support this without going ape on me.
Yes I would love to use this as a SQL server but that means going through massive amounts of red tape/meetings paperwork etc that I would prefer not to bother with
Could you not make them go with the free edition of SQL Server Express without the red tape?
In answer to your question, though, I've seen Access give big problems in environments with this many users, although that was pre 2007. I dunno how much it has changed.
If it were me, I'd avoid Access at all cost.
Could it? Yes. If you are very careful and perform locking and ensure that nobody steps on anybody else. Access is really not designed for any form of concurrency. I know of one place that managed to make it work in a very concurrent environment, but that environment basically logged everything and if the DB clobbered itself, it'd restore from the last backup and replay against the Access file automatically, so that the failures were transparent. I would not recommend following that course of action...
Should you do it? No. Is there any reason that you cannot use something like PostgreSQL or MySQL?
Yes, it would work. No, it's not a good idea.
Access would be able to handle the load, as long as those 35-40 people aren't all trying to access the database at once. It'll quickly bog down when you start having more than a couple of concurrent users, particularly if those users are all trying to update something.
The problem is that isn't not safe. You need to have the entire database file accessible on a network share, where any users will be able to write to it. You'll have multiple instances of Access trying to read and modify the file at the same time, and unless you are very careful with locking, it's quite possible for the database to become damaged or corrupt.
You'll also never be able to add any kind of access control beyond basic file permissions. You might not need it now, but internal databases often end up needing to be exposed to the wider world somehow.
It's not worth it. There are plenty of real RDBMS systems out there, for free, that are designed to handle this kind of thing. Why spend time trying to make Access work in such an environment, when you could just install SQL Server Express and be done with it? It has limitations, but if you're seriously considering Access, you're never going to be anywhere near those. Or use MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird...
I would avoid access too. Have you every thought about sql ce. It should handle multi users better and it is file just like access.
7 * 40 = 280 per hour.
280 / 60 = 4,6 per mins.
If your script is light, and if you don't read results too often, maybe...
Of course I don't recommand you to try. Meetings time! ;)
If the connections are opened only as long as needed to run the scripts, and you use transactions and have some retry logic built in when there's a conflict, there really oughtn't be too much of an issue.
If your script takes 1 second to do its update (that's a pretty long time in computer/database terms, of course), and there are 280 updates per hour, if you were lucky enough that no two users simultaneously ran their scripts, you would still have 3,320 seconds when the database was not open.
I don't see an issue, assuming that you know how to properly manage your connections and manage your Jet transactions.
That volume is not a problem for Access so long as it's on a stable LAN or very high speed WAN. Wireless connections are also a bad idea.
I have several clients which are adding about 200K to 300K transactions per year into the systems. So that's about 1000 per work day. That's using both an Access front end and back end.
That said one of them will be upsizing shortly to SQL Server. I fired the other client when they hired a PHB (Dilbert's pointy haired boss.)
It's iffy. The first time the database crashes you'll wish you went with SQL Server Express. And it will crash, eventually.
In my previous job we had a product with an Access database backend. We had some clients with 25 users. We refused clients who had 40 potential users because we knew from experience that the database would corrupt itself on a regular basis, and performance would be unacceptable.
The day we went to SQL Server Express, the performance of the application doubled, and the problems with crashing and corruption virtually disappeared.