Replication Disrupting Other Access

We have setup merge replication on a production server/database that
is also used for our web applications. We need the replication for
disconnected computing using an MSDE database. The replication works
exceptionally well, however, we had to publish ID ranges on the tables
so that data could be merged with the server correctly. This has
caused a problem with our web based applications. Once the end of the
ID range is reached, our other applications cannot insert data into
the tables without resetting the ranges or removing replication.
Has anyone else seen this problem? If so, is there a good work-around
to allow both entities to co-exist using the same database? We would
like to avoid adding a significant amount of code/scripts to manage
this automatically. Would we be better off to use a snapshot method
of replication and insert data directly from that?
Thanks for any suggestions you may have.
Dan Broomall
Dan,
there are 2 ways I can think of:
you can use large ranges - so large in fact that no new ranges are required,
or you can select to manually manage the ranges and select a simple
algorithm that ensures there is never any overlap between publisher and
subscriber(s). EG if you have a publisher and a single subscriber, the
publisher could have a seed of 1 and increment of 2 while the subscriber has
a seed of 2 and increment of 2 - the publisher has odd identity values and
the subscriber evens.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Replication Configuration?

Our website and sql database are hosted away from our offices and is updated via the web by customers and by us in our offices. However due to our slow internet connection we would like to bring a replication server into our office and have the two databases talk to each other when a change occurs.(Customers updating the public database and us update a local one).

I have seen sites mention circular replication is troublesome and may not work, is this the case or is it just a matter of correct configuration?

Any advice, tips etc would be appreciated.

Thanks

John

I guess u need a Transactional replication configured between the two server.

Two scenario u can have

1. Central publishers and many(as many as u wish) read only subscriber

2. Other case in which subscribers also get updated Immediate updating subscribers.

I guess u have a scenario where in both the server will get updated. u can go for transactional replication with immediate updating subscribers.

I see no issues in this and ofcourse correct configuration is must for anything u do with SQL Server.

|||

Also i have one more quick question..how frequent is update on the both the server?

if both server are frequently updated u should consider using merge replication instead of transactional replication with immediate updating subscription as immediate updating subscription is useful for only occasional changes on the subscribers.

|||

I posted this on a different thread, but I think it applys to you as well.

Here is a direct quote from BOL http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms152570.aspx

The following types of replication and replication options allow you to make changes at a Subscriber and have those changes flow to the Publisher:

Type of replication

Use when…

Merge replication

There are a large number of Subscribers.

Data is replicated to mobile users.

Replicated data is frequently updated at the Subscriber.

Data filtering is needed so that Subscribers receive different partitions of data.

replication / dmz

hi
if have a firewall with 3 nic cards
- 1 for incoming
- 1 for intranet
- 1 for web app
so that intranet is isolated from the web server
its still possible "replication"
from the intra-net SQLServer to
web server ?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.Yes. As long as you can use TCP and Standard SQL Security.
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

replication / dmz

hi
if have a firewall with 3 nic cards
- 1 for incoming
- 1 for intranet
- 1 for web app
so that intranet is isolated from the web server
its still possible "replication"
from the intra-net SQLServer to
web server ?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes. As long as you can use TCP and Standard SQL Security.
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Replicating twice

I have a question that google seems eerily quite on. I'm running SQL
2005 and am replicating (merge via the web) from an intermediate box
which is also running 05. The intermediate box is replicating in some
fashion (unsure since it isn't under my control) from a SQL 2K box.
My issue is that when the job executes it says "Merge completed with no
data changes processed." even though the intermediate box has updated
data on it. Is this common? Is the answer so obvious that everyone is
laughing at me now?
Thanks
Jeremiah
It should work. How is your global priority configured? You might want to
check the conflict viewer to see if these conflicts are logged.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"JC" <jbzcooper@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141343267.632060.296050@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>I have a question that google seems eerily quite on. I'm running SQL
> 2005 and am replicating (merge via the web) from an intermediate box
> which is also running 05. The intermediate box is replicating in some
> fashion (unsure since it isn't under my control) from a SQL 2K box.
> My issue is that when the job executes it says "Merge completed with no
> data changes processed." even though the intermediate box has updated
> data on it. Is this common? Is the answer so obvious that everyone is
> laughing at me now?
> Thanks
> Jeremiah
>
|||Jeremiah,
If I understand correctly, your SQL 2005 is subscribing from an intermediate
box, which subscribes from a SQL 2K server? Please note that for merge
replication, the publisher database version has be to newer than the
subscriber version, so basically SQL Server 2005 cannot be a subscriber of a
SQL 2000 publisher.
Yi Chen
"JC" <jbzcooper@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141343267.632060.296050@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>I have a question that google seems eerily quite on. I'm running SQL
> 2005 and am replicating (merge via the web) from an intermediate box
> which is also running 05. The intermediate box is replicating in some
> fashion (unsure since it isn't under my control) from a SQL 2K box.
> My issue is that when the job executes it says "Merge completed with no
> data changes processed." even though the intermediate box has updated
> data on it. Is this common? Is the answer so obvious that everyone is
> laughing at me now?
> Thanks
> Jeremiah
>
|||Are there any filters on the publisher that make the data not qualify for
the subscriber?
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"JC" <jbzcooper@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141343267.632060.296050@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> I have a question that google seems eerily quite on. I'm running SQL
> 2005 and am replicating (merge via the web) from an intermediate box
> which is also running 05. The intermediate box is replicating in some
> fashion (unsure since it isn't under my control) from a SQL 2K box.
> My issue is that when the job executes it says "Merge completed with no
> data changes processed." even though the intermediate box has updated
> data on it. Is this common? Is the answer so obvious that everyone is
> laughing at me now?
> Thanks
> Jeremiah
>