Computer name change at subscriber and Replication fail

Hello,
The computer name of one of the subscribers was changed and now the
sychronization does not go through.
It is not possible to changed back and I would like to know if there is an
easy way to get the subscriber back to work.
Thanks,
car.
Realistically you'll need to reinitialize. You could hack the system tables
if you are on SQL Server 2000 but I wouldn't advise it.
Paul Ibison
|||You need to drop your subscription and recreate it for the new subscriber.
"Car" <Car@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F57C2E3-0ADF-4CCE-95DF-A693BF317398@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> The computer name of one of the subscribers was changed and now the
> sychronization does not go through.
> It is not possible to changed back and I would like to know if there is an
> easy way to get the subscriber back to work.
> Thanks,
> car.
|||I don't know the kind of replication you're using. But maybe this can help
you.
Now I'm testing the replication that we'll set up in our customer and I've
done this:
Backup a subscription database in computer A.
Copied backup to computer B.
Switched off computer A.
Restore backup in computer B.
Changed name in computer B, setting computer's A name.
Execute:
Use Master
go
Sp_DropServer 'B\INSTANCE_NAME'
GO
Use Master
go
Sp_Addserver 'A\INSTANCE_NAME', 'local'
GO
This works if you have synchronized before doing the backup. I still need to
try if I do the backup before (so the changes are already replicated to
Publisher).
So for this, I think that just executing the script will be enough for you.
But now I'm afraid for what Paul an Hilary has said...
Josep.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> escribi en el mensaje
news:%23zMmeLqgHHA.3796@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> You need to drop your subscription and recreate it for the new subscriber.
> "Car" <Car@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5F57C2E3-0ADF-4CCE-95DF-A693BF317398@.microsoft.com...
>

Compression in Replication

we are planning to use SQL Server 2000 replication to replicate BLOBs
stored in image, ntext datatypes. Since the size of these BLOBs will
vary and sometimes be quite large, is there any way in which
Replication does compression on the data ?
we are concerned about the bandwidth issues and would appreciate
any insights into this.
Thanks
TJ,
on the snapshot location tab, you can select to plact the snapshot files in
an alternative location. If you do this, there is the option to compress the
files. The compression creates a CAB file which is passed to the subscriber
then decompressed there by the distribution/merge agent before assing to the
subscription database. Apart from the snapshot, I don't know of any way of
compressing data, as it is stored in system tables for transactional and
merge. You might like to look at optimisation of the agent profile to help
with BLOB datatypes.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||No, there is no way to selectively compress columns in tables with
replication. There are issues with replicating text and image data type
columns.
Look at Planning for Transactional Replication in BOL for more information.
"TJ" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E497769F-3B0A-40CA-9937-A314B359F681@.microsoft.com...
> we are planning to use SQL Server 2000 replication to replicate BLOBs
> stored in image, ntext datatypes. Since the size of these BLOBs will
> vary and sometimes be quite large, is there any way in which
> Replication does compression on the data ?
> we are concerned about the bandwidth issues and would appreciate
> any insights into this.
> Thanks
|||Thanks Hilary and Paul.
appreciate your inputs.
|||Normaly Windows to Windows PPP connection does data compression
up to 85%. In cases where we connect Windows servers over ISDN router
and for asome reason they cannot negotiate compression, we are using
OpenSSH + PUTTY , achieving up to 5 times better results than without
compression.
Happy greetings
Pagus
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:01:08 -0800, "TJ"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>we are planning to use SQL Server 2000 replication to replicate BLOBs
>stored in image, ntext datatypes. Since the size of these BLOBs will
>vary and sometimes be quite large, is there any way in which
>Replication does compression on the data ?
>we are concerned about the bandwidth issues and would appreciate
>any insights into this.
>Thanks

Compressed Snapshot Files!

Hello All,
I'm using Transactional Replication. I have compress snapshot file now I
want to configure it on Subscriber.
I saw BOL and it says,
1. In Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise Manager, expand the subscription
database and the Subscriptions directory, right- click a subscription,
and then click Properties.
but didnt find the Subscription directory under subscription database.
How can I configure?
Thanks in advance.
Naveed.
the snapshot files will be compressed in the cab format in your alternate
snapshot folder. If you are doing a pull subscription you have the option to
applying the snapshot (compressed or uncompressed) from an alternate
location by using the "Use snapshot files from the following folder option."
You will have to prove a path to the root of the snapshot location, ie
\\PublisherServerName\Share\ where this will map to c:\temp or wherever you
place your files in. If you copy these files locally you have to copy the
directory structure from unc on, ie if you place the files in c:\temp you
would copy the contents of unc to c:\temp.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Naveed" <nrehman@.marsonssoft.com> wrote in message
news:OoosGusqEHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello All,
> I'm using Transactional Replication. I have compress snapshot file now I
> want to configure it on Subscriber.
> I saw BOL and it says,
> 1. In Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise Manager, expand the subscription
> database and the Subscriptions directory, right- click a
subscription,
> and then click Properties.
> but didnt find the Subscription directory under subscription database.
> How can I configure?
> Thanks in advance.
> Naveed.
>
|||Hello Hilary!!!
Thanks for your reply, You gave solution for Pull Subscription But We are
using Push Subscription and we have very slow connection for publishing data
on subscriber, i.e why we compress snapshot file in alternate location and
now we want to configure it on subscriber.
How to do that?
Thanks,
Naveed.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQGmKXtqEHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> the snapshot files will be compressed in the cab format in your alternate
> snapshot folder. If you are doing a pull subscription you have the option
to
> applying the snapshot (compressed or uncompressed) from an alternate
> location by using the "Use snapshot files from the following folder
option."
> You will have to prove a path to the root of the snapshot location, ie
> \\PublisherServerName\Share\ where this will map to c:\temp or wherever
you
> place your files in. If you copy these files locally you have to copy the
> directory structure from unc on, ie if you place the files in c:\temp you
> would copy the contents of unc to c:\temp.
>
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Naveed" <nrehman@.marsonssoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OoosGusqEHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> subscription,
>
|||use the -AltSnapshotFolder switch on your distribution agent. make sure you
uncheck the generate snapshot in the default folder location for your
snapshot properties.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Naveed" <nrehman@.marsonssoft.com> wrote in message
news:eUFealtqEHA.376@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello Hilary!!!
> Thanks for your reply, You gave solution for Pull Subscription But We are
> using Push Subscription and we have very slow connection for publishing
data[vbcol=seagreen]
> on subscriber, i.e why we compress snapshot file in alternate location and
> now we want to configure it on subscriber.
> How to do that?
> Thanks,
> Naveed.
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eQGmKXtqEHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
alternate[vbcol=seagreen]
option[vbcol=seagreen]
> to
> option."
> you
the[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
subscription
>
sqlsql

Complicated Merge Replication/Trigger problem

Hi all, we have a complicated merge replication/trigger problem.
Ill try to explain the setup first...
We have 2 SQL Server 2005 servers (called Server1 and Server2 for this
example)
On each Server there is an identical database (called SalesData for
this example) which contains 2 related tables (called A and B for this
example).
Tables A and B are related in that when a record is updated in table A,
a trigger (called trUpdateB) fires which updates a related record in
table B.
The trigger trUpdateB is marked as 'Not For Replication'.
Now we have Merge replication set up between Server1.SalesData
(Publisher) and Server2.SalesData (Subscriber) which replicates changes
back and forth between the 2 databases.
When we update a record in table Server1.SalesData.A the trigger fires
and the replication takes place, so we get changes in both A and B
replicated to Server2.SalesData.
And vice versa, when we update a record in table Server2.SalesData.A
the trigger fires and the replication takes place, so we get changes in
both A and B replicated to Server1.SalesData.
So far, all works as expected.
The problem is this...
We create a conflict - updates are made to Server1.SalesData.A and
Server2.SalesData.A at about the same time.
We are using the default conflict resolver so the Publisher (Server1)
should win.
However when I look at the Replication Monitor it says that the there
was 1 change downloaded to the subscriber (table A's update) and 1
change uploaded to the publisher (table B's update - created by the
trUpdateB trigger).
I expected to see both the 2 changes downloaded to the subscriber.
The Replication Conflict Viewer only reports 1 conflict (for table A)
which was resolved as expected (Publisher wins).
I expected to see 2 conflicts (one for each table) both resolved in
favour of the Publisher.
Can anyone explain where I am going wrong here, either in my
implementation of merge replication or in my expectation of how it
should work?
Thanks in advance, any help is greatly appreciated.
Bazza
This is hard to figure out. I take it you have column level tracking -
otherwise you would have no conflict.
I would do the following. On the Subscriber update A. See the update in B.
Verify that there are corresponding entries in msmerge_contents for both the
updates.
Repeat this on the publisher. Verify that everything is in place. Now do the
sync.
There should be 2 downloads. Both from the publisher to the subscriber.
There should be between one and two conflicts depending on the columns
changed.
Run profiler on the subscriber to see what it is doing.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"bazza" <bazzaontour2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164110590.894357.308440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi all, we have a complicated merge replication/trigger problem.
> Ill try to explain the setup first...
> We have 2 SQL Server 2005 servers (called Server1 and Server2 for this
> example)
> On each Server there is an identical database (called SalesData for
> this example) which contains 2 related tables (called A and B for this
> example).
> Tables A and B are related in that when a record is updated in table A,
> a trigger (called trUpdateB) fires which updates a related record in
> table B.
> The trigger trUpdateB is marked as 'Not For Replication'.
> Now we have Merge replication set up between Server1.SalesData
> (Publisher) and Server2.SalesData (Subscriber) which replicates changes
> back and forth between the 2 databases.
> When we update a record in table Server1.SalesData.A the trigger fires
> and the replication takes place, so we get changes in both A and B
> replicated to Server2.SalesData.
> And vice versa, when we update a record in table Server2.SalesData.A
> the trigger fires and the replication takes place, so we get changes in
> both A and B replicated to Server1.SalesData.
> So far, all works as expected.
> The problem is this...
> We create a conflict - updates are made to Server1.SalesData.A and
> Server2.SalesData.A at about the same time.
> We are using the default conflict resolver so the Publisher (Server1)
> should win.
> However when I look at the Replication Monitor it says that the there
> was 1 change downloaded to the subscriber (table A's update) and 1
> change uploaded to the publisher (table B's update - created by the
> trUpdateB trigger).
> I expected to see both the 2 changes downloaded to the subscriber.
> The Replication Conflict Viewer only reports 1 conflict (for table A)
> which was resolved as expected (Publisher wins).
> I expected to see 2 conflicts (one for each table) both resolved in
> favour of the Publisher.
> Can anyone explain where I am going wrong here, either in my
> implementation of merge replication or in my expectation of how it
> should work?
> Thanks in advance, any help is greatly appreciated.
> Bazza
>
|||Thanks for your reply Hilary
No, we are using Row Level tracking. However Im changing the same
column on the same record in table A on both servers so it shouldnt
make any difference should it? Whether Im using Row or Column level
tracking Im going to cause a conflict as far as I understand it? Please
correct me if Im wrong.
Ok, I tried your suggestion. After making the changes on the publisher
and the subscriber there were 2 entries in the msmerge_contents in each
database. The 'rowguid' column shows the correct value for the 2
records (one from A and one from B). So everything seems to be in place
at this point.
Then I started the sync and got the same result as before! 1 download
(table A) and 1 upload (B) is showing in replication monitor. There is
1 conflict (as before) showing in replication conflict viewer which was
resolved in favour of the Publisher (as before)
Something very strange is going on but I cant quite figure it out.
Curiously when I disabled the trigger (on both servers) and made the
change to table A (on both) then simulated the trigger firing by
manually changing the record in table B (on both), it all works as
expected. 2 downloads, 0 uploads, 2 conflicts resolved in favour of the
publisher (1 on each table).
It appears to be something to do with the trigger - is it conflicting
with the Merge triggers in some way, do you think?
Bazza
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> This is hard to figure out. I take it you have column level tracking -
> otherwise you would have no conflict.
> I would do the following. On the Subscriber update A. See the update in B.
> Verify that there are corresponding entries in msmerge_contents for both the
> updates.
> Repeat this on the publisher. Verify that everything is in place. Now do the
> sync.
> There should be 2 downloads. Both from the publisher to the subscriber.
> There should be between one and two conflicts depending on the columns
> changed.
> Run profiler on the subscriber to see what it is doing.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "bazza" <bazzaontour2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164110590.894357.308440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
|||Just to make a wild guess. ensure that you are using the custom
resolver (publisher wins) on both the tables A and B.
On Nov 22, 10:57 pm, "bazza" <bazzaontour2...@.hotmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply Hilary
> No, we are using Row Level tracking. However Im changing the same
> column on the same record in table A on both servers so it shouldnt
> make any difference should it? Whether Im using Row or Column level
> tracking Im going to cause a conflict as far as I understand it? Please
> correct me if Im wrong.
> Ok, I tried your suggestion. After making the changes on the publisher
> and the subscriber there were 2 entries in the msmerge_contents in each
> database. The 'rowguid' column shows the correct value for the 2
> records (one from A and one from B). So everything seems to be in place
> at this point.
> Then I started the sync and got the same result as before! 1 download
> (table A) and 1 upload (B) is showing in replication monitor. There is
> 1 conflict (as before) showing in replication conflict viewer which was
> resolved in favour of the Publisher (as before)
> Something very strange is going on but I cant quite figure it out.
> Curiously when I disabled the trigger (on both servers) and made the
> change to table A (on both) then simulated the trigger firing by
> manually changing the record in table B (on both), it all works as
> expected. 2 downloads, 0 uploads, 2 conflicts resolved in favour of the
> publisher (1 on each table).
> It appears to be something to do with the trigger - is it conflicting
> with the Merge triggers in some way, do you think?
> Bazza
> Hilary Cotter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|||Thanks Udit
However, we are using the default resolver (and the subscriber priority
is set to 75.00) so the Publisher should win all conflicts as I
understand it - correct?
Ok, well Ive moved on slightly with the problem.
Ive realized that although the trigger is firing as expected, it doesnt
actually make any changes to the record in table B - the column value
is updated to the same as the existing value.
Therefore I can now understand why there is only 1 conflict.
However I still dont understand why there is 1 upload and 1 download -
I would now expect there just to be the 1 download and 0 uploads.
Any ideas?
Udit Ghai wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just to make a wild guess. ensure that you are using the custom
> resolver (publisher wins) on both the tables A and B.
>
> On Nov 22, 10:57 pm, "bazza" <bazzaontour2...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
|||You are right that there is one upload when actually you would expect 0
uploads. However even an update to the same value is an update. So I would
say that one would expect 1 upload attempted which should result in a
conflict and 1 download with the publisher update winning (even though there
is no real update).
However since there are no real updates, this may seem cosmetic. But if you
had real updates then I do see the expected behavior -- 2 updates attempted
which will resut in 2 conflicts and the 2 publisher rows in A and B
downloaded.
Note that you dont need to have 2 tables and triggers to see this behavior.
Just a simple table and try updating c1=c1 on both publisher and subscriber.
At this point, I would say that if this doesnt cause you pain in your logic,
its livable. We can address this in the next release of SQL Server.
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"bazza" <bazzaontour2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164290161.387477.142820@.l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Thanks Udit
> However, we are using the default resolver (and the subscriber priority
> is set to 75.00) so the Publisher should win all conflicts as I
> understand it - correct?
> Ok, well Ive moved on slightly with the problem.
> Ive realized that although the trigger is firing as expected, it doesnt
> actually make any changes to the record in table B - the column value
> is updated to the same as the existing value.
> Therefore I can now understand why there is only 1 conflict.
> However I still dont understand why there is 1 upload and 1 download -
> I would now expect there just to be the 1 download and 0 uploads.
> Any ideas?
>
> Udit Ghai wrote:
>
|||Thanks very much Mahesh.
It doesnt cause any pain, but Im really just trying to satisfy myself
that Merge replication works as I understand it, as we are about to
deploy this a large, muti user system. What seem like little
inconveniences like this, might cause bigger problems in the live
system.
Anyway, Im still not completely happy I understand. So you are saying
that because I am doing an UPDATE in the trigger, even if I just set
the value to be the same as existing, this will still result in a merge
action?
If so, then I would still expect 2 downloads and 0 uploads, with 2
conflicts resolved in favour of the publisher, wouldnt I?
I am still getting, 1 download (table A), 1 upload (table B) and 1
conflict resolved in favour of the publisher (for the table A update).
I dont believe I should be getting the 1 upload at all.
When the merge engine tries to upload the update to table A it gets a
conflict and the publisher wins so the upload doesnt happen - thats as
I expect.
However when the merge engine tries to upload the update to table B
(created by the trigger) it doesnt appear to get a conflict and the
upload DOES happen. This is not right in my opinion.
If you like I can script out the tables with the trigger?
Thanks for your time
Bazza
Mahesh [MSFT] wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You are right that there is one upload when actually you would expect 0
> uploads. However even an update to the same value is an update. So I would
> say that one would expect 1 upload attempted which should result in a
> conflict and 1 download with the publisher update winning (even though there
> is no real update).
> However since there are no real updates, this may seem cosmetic. But if you
> had real updates then I do see the expected behavior -- 2 updates attempted
> which will resut in 2 conflicts and the 2 publisher rows in A and B
> downloaded.
> Note that you dont need to have 2 tables and triggers to see this behavior.
> Just a simple table and try updating c1=c1 on both publisher and subscriber.
> At this point, I would say that if this doesnt cause you pain in your logic,
> its livable. We can address this in the next release of SQL Server.
> Hope that helps
> --Mahesh
> [ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
> rights. ]
> "bazza" <bazzaontour2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164290161.387477.142820@.l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
|||Bazza,
Yes, I agree that update to B should conflict and you should not see an
update.
However if you make a real update (instead of updating c1=c1 or updating to
the same value, as you were doing previously), you should see a conflict and
should not see an upload happen.
Can you try that and let me know if you are still seeing an upload. Then it
can become an issue. Otherwise it doesnt matter because you are updating the
value to the same value at both sides and so essentially there is no
difference in data whether the upload happens or not.
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"bazza" <bazzaontour2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164362204.094165.260040@.l12g2000cwl.googlegr oups.com...
> Thanks very much Mahesh.
> It doesnt cause any pain, but Im really just trying to satisfy myself
> that Merge replication works as I understand it, as we are about to
> deploy this a large, muti user system. What seem like little
> inconveniences like this, might cause bigger problems in the live
> system.
> Anyway, Im still not completely happy I understand. So you are saying
> that because I am doing an UPDATE in the trigger, even if I just set
> the value to be the same as existing, this will still result in a merge
> action?
> If so, then I would still expect 2 downloads and 0 uploads, with 2
> conflicts resolved in favour of the publisher, wouldnt I?
> I am still getting, 1 download (table A), 1 upload (table B) and 1
> conflict resolved in favour of the publisher (for the table A update).
> I dont believe I should be getting the 1 upload at all.
> When the merge engine tries to upload the update to table A it gets a
> conflict and the publisher wins so the upload doesnt happen - thats as
> I expect.
> However when the merge engine tries to upload the update to table B
> (created by the trigger) it doesnt appear to get a conflict and the
> upload DOES happen. This is not right in my opinion.
> If you like I can script out the tables with the trigger?
> Thanks for your time
> Bazza
> Mahesh [MSFT] wrote:
>

complex join replication filtering is not working in 3.5 beta

Hi,

I have a complex join filtering on a replicated sql server database which was working fine in previous versions of sql compact. The query is something like the following:

SELECT <published columns> FROM <filtered table> INNER JOIN <child table> ON <child table>.ID = <filtered table>.ID and <child table>.date > getdate()-30

After I upgraded to compact databse 3.5, for some weird reason whichever tables have both these Join filter and article filter together behaving improperly. If I insert any row in any of these table, the row is replicated properly to the server, but it does not send the new row to any other users. Again this thing works fine in older version. I have switched back tyo the old version of sql ce and again it's started working.

please help.

|||

You have to let us know a little more about your environment. - SQL Server version and SP level. Which version of Server Tools (sqlcesaxx.dll) are you using. And so on.

|||

Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit)
Version: 9.00.2047.00
OS: Windows 2003

sqlcesa35.dll version:

3.5.5365.0

|||

For Merge replication, it is important that you use SQL Server 2005 SP2. Try to install this, if the problem persists, log the problem at connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

complex join replication filtering is not working in 3.5 beta

Hi,

I have a complex join filtering on a replicated sql server database which was working fine in previous versions of sql compact. The query is something like the following:

SELECT <published columns> FROM <filtered table> INNER JOIN <child table> ON <child table>.ID = <filtered table>.ID and <child table>.date > getdate()-30

After I upgraded to compact databse 3.5, for some weird reason whichever tables have both these Join filter and article filter together behaving improperly. If I insert any row in any of these table, the row is replicated properly to the server, but it does not send the new row to any other users. Again this thing works fine in older version. I have switched back tyo the old version of sql ce and again it's started working.

please help.

|||

You have to let us know a little more about your environment. - SQL Server version and SP level. Which version of Server Tools (sqlcesaxx.dll) are you using. And so on.

|||

Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit)
Version: 9.00.2047.00
OS: Windows 2003

sqlcesa35.dll version:

3.5.5365.0

|||

For Merge replication, it is important that you use SQL Server 2005 SP2. Try to install this, if the problem persists, log the problem at connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

complex join replication filtering is not working in 3.5 beta

Hi,

I have a complex join filtering on a replicated sql server database which was working fine in previous versions of sql compact. The query is something like the following:

SELECT <published columns> FROM <filtered table> INNER JOIN <child table> ON <child table>.ID = <filtered table>.ID and <child table>.date > getdate()-30

After I upgraded to compact databse 3.5, for some weird reason whichever tables have both these Join filter and article filter together behaving improperly. If I insert any row in any of these table, the row is replicated properly to the server, but it does not send the new row to any other users. Again this thing works fine in older version. I have switched back tyo the old version of sql ce and again it's started working.

please help.

|||

You have to let us know a little more about your environment. - SQL Server version and SP level. Which version of Server Tools (sqlcesaxx.dll) are you using. And so on.

|||

Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit)
Version: 9.00.2047.00
OS: Windows 2003

sqlcesa35.dll version:

3.5.5365.0

|||

For Merge replication, it is important that you use SQL Server 2005 SP2. Try to install this, if the problem persists, log the problem at connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

complex join replication filtering is not working in 3.5 beta

Hi,

I have a complex join filtering on a replicated sql server database which was working fine in previous versions of sql compact. The query is something like the following:

SELECT <published columns> FROM <filtered table> INNER JOIN <child table> ON <child table>.ID = <filtered table>.ID and <child table>.date > getdate()-30

After I upgraded to compact databse 3.5, for some weird reason whichever tables have both these Join filter and article filter together behaving improperly. If I insert any row in any of these table, the row is replicated properly to the server, but it does not send the new row to any other users. Again this thing works fine in older version. I have switched back tyo the old version of sql ce and again it's started working.

please help.

|||

You have to let us know a little more about your environment. - SQL Server version and SP level. Which version of Server Tools (sqlcesaxx.dll) are you using. And so on.

|||

Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit)
Version: 9.00.2047.00
OS: Windows 2003

sqlcesa35.dll version:

3.5.5365.0

|||

For Merge replication, it is important that you use SQL Server 2005 SP2. Try to install this, if the problem persists, log the problem at connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

complex join replication filtering is not working in 3.5 beta

Hi,

I have a complex join filtering on a replicated sql server database which was working fine in previous versions of sql compact. The query is something like the following:

SELECT <published columns> FROM <filtered table> INNER JOIN <child table> ON <child table>.ID = <filtered table>.ID and <child table>.date > getdate()-30

After I upgraded to compact databse 3.5, for some weird reason whichever tables have both these Join filter and article filter together behaving improperly. If I insert any row in any of these table, the row is replicated properly to the server, but it does not send the new row to any other users. Again this thing works fine in older version. I have switched back tyo the old version of sql ce and again it's started working.

please help.

|||

You have to let us know a little more about your environment. - SQL Server version and SP level. Which version of Server Tools (sqlcesaxx.dll) are you using. And so on.

|||

Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit)
Version: 9.00.2047.00
OS: Windows 2003

sqlcesa35.dll version:

3.5.5365.0

|||

For Merge replication, it is important that you use SQL Server 2005 SP2. Try to install this, if the problem persists, log the problem at connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver

Complete newbie to replication, have a question

We have had a server in LocationA for quite some time. The need arose
recently to have a server setup in LocationB due to some bandwidth issues.
LocationB was given a snapshot of the DB @. LocationA when it was first
setup. However, both machines will need to have the same data as both are
used in a production environment. I will probably want to do this nightly.
I have read a lot of posts and webistes, but still am semi in the dark.
About the only thing i've figured out (i think) is that I will need to do
some sort of merge replicaiton.
What do I need to do to get started, a link to a HOW TO for a smiliar setup
would be great. I have read a bit and some mention having a 3rd server, do
i need a 3rd server as the final merged server? I guess more importantly is
a 3rd server an optimal solution?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Forgot to mention, I am running SQL Server 2000 on both servers.
"Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OjZ0E0bQGHA.5296@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> We have had a server in LocationA for quite some time. The need arose
> recently to have a server setup in LocationB due to some bandwidth issues.
> LocationB was given a snapshot of the DB @. LocationA when it was first
> setup. However, both machines will need to have the same data as both are
> used in a production environment. I will probably want to do this
> nightly.
> I have read a lot of posts and webistes, but still am semi in the dark.
> About the only thing i've figured out (i think) is that I will need to do
> some sort of merge replicaiton.
> What do I need to do to get started, a link to a HOW TO for a smiliar
> setup would be great. I have read a bit and some mention having a 3rd
> server, do i need a 3rd server as the final merged server? I guess more
> importantly is a 3rd server an optimal solution?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
|||In merge replication you will have Distributor, Publisher and Subscriber.
They are different roles for a replication setup but they can be on the same
physical machine. I think the 3rd server you mentioned is distributor. You
can setup the distributor on the same server with the publisher, so you
don't need a third machine.
Yi Chen
"Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OjZ0E0bQGHA.5296@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> We have had a server in LocationA for quite some time. The need arose
> recently to have a server setup in LocationB due to some bandwidth issues.
> LocationB was given a snapshot of the DB @. LocationA when it was first
> setup. However, both machines will need to have the same data as both are
> used in a production environment. I will probably want to do this
> nightly.
> I have read a lot of posts and webistes, but still am semi in the dark.
> About the only thing i've figured out (i think) is that I will need to do
> some sort of merge replicaiton.
> What do I need to do to get started, a link to a HOW TO for a smiliar
> setup would be great. I have read a bit and some mention having a 3rd
> server, do i need a 3rd server as the final merged server? I guess more
> importantly is a 3rd server an optimal solution?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
|||Ok. That makes sense.
I have been messing around trying to set it up today, and am still lost.
Currently the 2 servers are out of sync. Both have data the other doesn't.
What do I need to do to get them both to have the same data now, and then
keep them replciating from here on out?
"Yi Chen [MSFT]" <yiche@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23o7jSucQGHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> In merge replication you will have Distributor, Publisher and Subscriber.
> They are different roles for a replication setup but they can be on the
> same physical machine. I think the 3rd server you mentioned is
> distributor. You can setup the distributor on the same server with the
> publisher, so you don't need a third machine.
> Yi Chen
> "Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:OjZ0E0bQGHA.5296@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Lucas Graf wrote:
> We have had a server in LocationA for quite some time. The need arose
> recently to have a server setup in LocationB due to some bandwidth issues.
> LocationB was given a snapshot of the DB @. LocationA when it was first
> setup. However, both machines will need to have the same data as both are
> used in a production environment. I will probably want to do this nightly.
> I have read a lot of posts and webistes, but still am semi in the dark.
> About the only thing i've figured out (i think) is that I will need to do
> some sort of merge replicaiton.
> What do I need to do to get started, a link to a HOW TO for a smiliar setup
> would be great. I have read a bit and some mention having a 3rd server, do
> i need a 3rd server as the final merged server? I guess more importantly is
> a 3rd server an optimal solution?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|||Lucas,
presumably you have initialized the subscriber and are using merge
replication? If so, you just need to synchronize the subscriber to have the
data merged. You'll need to consider who should win conflicts (publisher by
default) and if conflicts should be allowed (filtering).
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Ok.
I got this far and was tentative on going further. I will keep trucking and
see what else may come up that causes issues. Thanks for the help so far, I
hope to report back a positive experience.
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:%23ogHO4uQGHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Lucas,
> presumably you have initialized the subscriber and are using merge
> replication? If so, you just need to synchronize the subscriber to have
> the data merged. You'll need to consider who should win conflicts
> (publisher by default) and if conflicts should be allowed (filtering).
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||I guess I am still confused w/the whole publisher/distributor thing.
Since I want both servers to merge both of their data are they both set to
publishers and distributors? Or is only 1 a publisher and both distributors
and subscribers?
So confused..
"Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ob$pMuzQGHA.2436@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Ok.
> I got this far and was tentative on going further. I will keep trucking
> and see what else may come up that causes issues. Thanks for the help so
> far, I hope to report back a positive experience.
>
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:%23ogHO4uQGHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||Ok.
ServerA
I have set him to a Distributor, Publisher and set the Database i want to
publish to the other server as the "push" datatabase. All seems good on
ServerA.
ServerB
Not sure what to do here so its data gets pushed to ServerA to be merged
there as well. Everything I try i end up getting the error "You cannot
create a merge replicaion in database xxxc. The database contains one or
more merge subscritptions that are anonymous or that use the Priority of the
Publisher when resolving conflicts."
"Lucas Graf" <lgraf@.nvidia.com> wrote in message
news:uSQuaI8QGHA.5552@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I guess I am still confused w/the whole publisher/distributor thing.
> Since I want both servers to merge both of their data are they both set to
> publishers and distributors? Or is only 1 a publisher and both
> distributors and subscribers?
> So confused..
>
> "Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Ob$pMuzQGHA.2436@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Maybe Bidirectional Transactional Replication is more what I am looking for?
"Lucas Graf" <lgraf@.nvidia.com> wrote in message
news:uSQuaI8QGHA.5552@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I guess I am still confused w/the whole publisher/distributor thing.
> Since I want both servers to merge both of their data are they both set to
> publishers and distributors? Or is only 1 a publisher and both
> distributors and subscribers?
> So confused..
>
> "Lucas Graf" <lgraf2000@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Ob$pMuzQGHA.2436@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>

compensating delete on replication database!

Hi
I have Merge Publication with just one Subscriber running on SQL 2000
which has been Service packed fully.
Looking at the previous posts I did uncheck 'Enforce relationship for
replication' on the Table Relationships hoping that the deletion of
records will not happen.
But for some unknown reason the records in the FK relationship is
deleted, which is causing all sorts of problems. There are no Triggers
on the database, and I could not find a pattern for the deletion it
happens randomly.
E.G. We have a 'Contacts' and 'Addresses' Table, one contact can have
more than 1 address. But for some reason the addresses are being deleted
for the contact, i am not sure where it is happening whether in
Subscriber or Publisher, but we loose the record.
Does any one has a good solution for this?
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Laks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Do you have any user triggers at all?
Perhaps you are experiencing the compensating commands situation :
http://support.microsoft.com/default...Product=sql2k?
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)!
|||Thanks Paul for the link. But I do not have any user triggers at all?
Since the 'Enforce relationship for replication' is unchecked, I am a
bit puzzled about how this is happening.
Can I apply the hotfix (the link you have sent) to the production
server? Is it safe?
Thanks once again.
Regards
Laks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Hi Paul
The Hotfix is available only in SP4 Beta and not sure when it is going
to be released. In the meantime the database is loosing the records all
the way through. Can you suggest any intermediate solutions? somethings
I need to check etc..
Thanks
Laks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||The two suggestions weren't related - user triggers was just one other
posibility.
If it is a compensation issue, you should be able to reproduce. An address
added successfully at one site will be deleted if it cannot be applied at
the other due to a PK/FK error, constraint error etc. So, you need to check
that the schemas are identical wrt these tables (SQLCompare?). If you can
find an address that repeatedly gets removed then tracking/removing the
constraint should be simple.
HTH,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)!
|||Hi Paul
Thanks for the reply. There is not pattern these records are deleted and
I am not able to re-create it as well.
The Addresses Table has 2 FK relationship one to the AddressType Table
and one to the Contact Table were the records are all present. It is
only the Address records that gets deleted.
Any other areas to look into, please...
Thanks
Laks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Hi Paul
I am really sorry, there is a Trigger created by another developer on
the Addresses Table, which maintaines the Ref. Intergerity. Could this
be the cause for this 'compensating deletion', if so how to overcome
this, do we need to remove the triggers?
Regards
Laks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Compensating Changes - Deletes Good Rows From a Table?

We have some tables set up doing merge replication, and just came across
http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=sql2k
Is this gist of this, that when a compensating change condition exists, that
potentially good rows that cannot be replicated out, are instead DELETED
from the source table?
Is it logged somewhere when this has happened, or is there a way to monitor
it otherwise?
Thanks!
They are logged as conflicts but remain in the publisher/subscriber.
So if you insert a row with the same pk value in the publisher and
subscriber, when the sync happens the rows remain in the publisher and
subscriber.
If you update a row on the subscriber and delete it on the publisher, the
row remains updated on the subscriber and is not deleted there and remains
deleted on the publisher.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Art Vandelay" <artvandelay92k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OR2q7S6%23FHA.264@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> We have some tables set up doing merge replication, and just came across
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=sql2k
> Is this gist of this, that when a compensating change condition exists,
> that potentially good rows that cannot be replicated out, are instead
> DELETED from the source table?
> Is it logged somewhere when this has happened, or is there a way to
> monitor it otherwise?
> Thanks!
>
>
>

comparison of SQL Server 7.0 with SQL Server 2000

Hello,
Can any one help me with this topic:
Comparison of SQL Server 7.0 Replication with SQL Server 2000
Replication
Thanks!One doesn't work, the other does (see order of the question)|||Originally posted by rdjabarov
One doesn't work, the other does (see order of the question)

Great Answer, Hope you are genius...keep it up|||No, I'm just learning, but you already developed an attitude. Keep it up ;)

Comparison of different replication types

Greetings,
I'm looking for a document that does a really good comparison of merge
replication, peer-to-peer transactional replication, and transactional
replication with updating subscribers. Does anyone know of a site or
document with such a comparison? I would especially be interested in
scalability/performance information regarding the different types of
replication.
Thanks,
Sam Bendayan
DB Architect
Ultimate Software
sam.bendayan@.gmail.com
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Also, I found in one of the blog posts a statement saying that
Peer-To-Peer replication does not scale well beyond 10 nodes. Just to
be perfectly clear, does this mean that if you have more than 10 servers
in the replication topology then you will start to see performance
problems and that there is no good solution to this?
It also states that merge replication is better for a large number of
nodes. Is it possible to have these larger number of nodes synchronized
frequently (every few minutes), or will that not scale well either?
Thanks,
SB
Sam Bendayan
DB Architect
Ultimate Software
sam.bendayan@.gmail.com
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||In a PASS talk on SQL Server 2005 Replication, Philip Vaughn the Microsoft
program manager for Replication said that (IIRC) between 10-15 nodes the
network links become saturated and he did not recommend scaling it beyond
this number.
Regarding scaling merge replication, you have to look at hierarchies.
Depending on the amount of data you sync with each subscriber each time you
might have to limit the number of concurrent merge processes.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Sam Bendayan" <sam.bendayan@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4DP5YFvHHA.3724@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also, I found in one of the blog posts a statement saying that
> Peer-To-Peer replication does not scale well beyond 10 nodes. Just to
> be perfectly clear, does this mean that if you have more than 10 servers
> in the replication topology then you will start to see performance
> problems and that there is no good solution to this?
> It also states that merge replication is better for a large number of
> nodes. Is it possible to have these larger number of nodes synchronized
> frequently (every few minutes), or will that not scale well either?
> Thanks,
> SB
> Sam Bendayan
> DB Architect
> Ultimate Software
> sam.bendayan@.gmail.com
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***