Maximum Number Of Subscribers And Transacational Replication.
Sep 21, 2006
Hi:
Is there a limit on the number of subscribers for Transactional replication?. My question is how many maximum number of subscribers can we have in transactional replication?. How do I retrieve this information throug T-SQL (any DMVs or system tables?). Please let me know.
I am looking to know for both SQL 2005 as well as SQL 2000 and also if anyone can tell me if anything has changed in SQL 2005 for transactional replication that would be great.
SQL Server 2000 8.00.760 (SP3)I've been working on a test system and the following UDF worked fine.It runs in the "current" database, and references another database onthe same server called 127-SuperQuote.CREATE FUNCTION fnGetFormattedAddress(@WorkID int)RETURNS varchar(130)ASBEGINDECLARE@Address1 As varchar(50)@ReturnAddress As varchar(130)SELECT@Address1 = [127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany.Address1FROM[Work] INNER JOIN[127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany ON [Work].ClientID =[127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany.CompanyIDWHERE[Work].WorkID = @WorkIDIF @Address1 IS NOT NULLSET @ReturnAddress = @ReturnAddress + @Address1 + CHAR(13)+ CHAR(10)RETURN @ReturnAddressENDSo now the system has gone live and it turns out that the live"SuperQuote" database is on a different server.I've linked the server and changed the function as below, but I get anerror both in QA and when checking Syntax in the UDF builder:The number name 'Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany' contains more than themaximum number of prefixes. The maximum is 3.CREATE FUNCTION fnGetFormattedAddress(@WorkID int)RETURNS varchar(130)ASBEGINDECLARE@Address1 As varchar(50)@ReturnAddress As varchar(130)SELECT@Address1 = Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany.Address1FROM[Work] INNER JOINZen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany ON [Work].ClientID =Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany.CompanyIDWHERE[Work].WorkID = @WorkIDIF @Address1 IS NOT NULLSET @ReturnAddress = @ReturnAddress + @Address1 + CHAR(13)+ CHAR(10)RETURN @ReturnAddressENDHow can I get round this? By the way, I've rather simplified thefunction to ease readability. Also, I haven't posted any DDL because Idon't think that's the problem!ThanksEdward
I have created a local user on Report Server Computer and the user has the administrative rights. When i try to connect Report Server (http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/reportserver) with this user's credantials. (ReportServer directory security is set -only- to Basic Authentication. ). I get the following error.
The number of requests for "XXXServerXXXUser" has exceeded the maximum number allowed for a single user. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SQL Server Reporting Services
Then i try to login using a different user with administrative rights on the machine, i can logon successfully. The system is up for a month but this problem occured today?!? What could be the problem?!?
Is it possible to replicate data from one publishers to a multiple subscribers in transaction replication? In other words I have Server A, Server B, Server C with databases A,B,C respectively. I need to replicate 10 articles from A to B but only 1 from A to C. In other words I want to use the same publisher but select one article from that publisher instead of all 10 to Server C/database C.
If it is possible what will be the drawbacks of such implementation? Will performance be a hit?
I am Using Transactional Replication with Updatable Subscriptions. Is there any limitations in the number of subscribers (Servers) used for this type of replication?
I have a scenario of configuring this replication in 60 Subscribers(Servers). And the replication should be in the Continuous running mode. Will Transactional Replication with Updatable Subscriptions work in this scenario??? Or is it meant to work for less than 10 subscribers?
We are developing a system which will have to support more than 3000 subscribers. We will have to support both Transactional replication and Merge replication.
I checked the following document about SQL 2005 replication <http:// www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/mergrepl.mspx>. The document does not clearly specify what is the maximum number of subscribers supported without a significant performance degradation.
The questions i have are: 1. Given the fact that there will be more than 3000 subscribers, there will be more than 500-1000 subscribers trying to replicate at the same time. Will be there be a performance degradtion in such a scenario
2. Has anyone used SQL Server 2005 in a scenario involving more than 3000 subscribers?
3. Will it be better if we develop our own system to perform replication activity instead of relying on SQL Server 2005?
- Ngm
Mail me atnarasimha (DOT) gm (AT) gmail (DOT) com )
I am trying to create Replication Topology (Merge Replication) like below.
Subscriber1 --> Publisher <-- Subscriber2.
I have created both subscribers with Subscription Type as Server with Priority as 75. I am updating the Column A of Row_10 in Subscriber1 on time say 11 am. After i am running the Starting synchronizing agent from Subscriber1. The value propagated to Publisher now publisher contains the latest value in Column A. Uptonow the Subscriber2 is not synchronized with Publisher.
Now in Subscriber2 also Column A of Row_10 is updated say at 11.10 am. Actually now Publisher contains the value from Subscriber1 for that Column and in Subscriber2 we have the same column updated.
Now i am running the Synchronization in Subscriber2, i am getting the result which is not expected. Here Publisher's value is propagated to Subscriber2. But as per real scenario Subscriber2 has the Latest value which is updated on 11.10 AM.
I don't know what am i missing here. Actually merge replication should see the time stamp and it has to decide winner. But here it always considers publisher as a winner and puts the data to Subscriber.
I read the BOL on how the publisher will had out identity ranges to subscribers, but it was not clear if this was also the case for anonymous subscribers. Will merge replication with identity columns work with anonymous subscribers that sync via HTTPS?
I need to merge replicate data to two different types of subscribers:
Clients subscribers which will have a very small percentage of the data from the central database. The data on these machines will be managed using dynamic filtering on host_name() Server subscribers which will manage a copy of all the data from the central database There will be far fewer server subscribers than client subscribers.
As I see it I have two options for the configuration 1) Use two separate merge publications one which is filtered and one which isnt 2) Use a single merge publication and setup the filtering so that the server subscribers receive all the rows
Which option is likely to lead to better performance?
With option 1) there would be 2 complete sets of replication metadata which need to be maintained so I am tending towards option 2. Are there any disadvantages in using a dynamic filter to return a very large number of rows?
I am looking for bidirectional transactional replication using updatable subscribers (queued or immediate) . Is it possible to replicate the image data from the updatable subscribers to the publisher. I understood that the Image data can't be replicated to the publisher from the updatable subscriber. I am not using the WRITETEXT or UPDATETEXT. I am using just INSERT and UPDATE for image data type transactions.
I posted a more detailed technical question a couple of weeks ago with Subject = "Compact Edition 2005 Subscribers - Merge Agent failed after detecting that retention-based cleanup has deleted metadata" But I got no replies.
Now my question is simpler: Is SQL Server 2005 Merge Replication reliable with Compact Edition subscribers on WindowsXP tablets?
We deleted all users' local databases a couple of weeks ago, and republished two publications with retention = 60 days. Now we have at least one user who can't sync with the server, and replication monitor shows the error below. But if she e-mails her sdf file to a support person, they can successfully sync her database. We're sure that it's not a permissions issue, which is a normal suspicion when one user can perform a task that another can not. It doesn't seem like a retention problem, because she's well inside the retention period. She can successfully sync with the publication with upload/download tablers, but not with the publication with download only tables. Both publications were created on the same day, by the same DBA, with nearly identical properties.
This problem user has operated in the past with no problem, and she's configured identically to all of the others. It just seems like random flakyness with merge replication for Compact Edition subscribers.
I feel stupid saying that, because it sounds like I believe in a magical ghost in the machine. So my question is - IS MERGE REPLICATION A LITTLE BIT FLAKY FOR COMPACT EDITION SUBSCRIBERS ON XP MACHINES?
We've applied SP2 to the server, but no subsequent HotFixes.
We're trying to sell users and management on developing a larger occasionally connected system with the same replication scheme, so we need to know if it deserves our confidence.
Error messages:
The Merge Agent failed after detecting that retention-based metadata cleanup has deleted metadata at the Publisher for changes not yet sent to the Subscriber. You must reinitialize the subscription (without upload). (Source: MSSQL_REPL, Error number: MSSQL_REPL-2147199402) Get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL-2147199402
Hello people,I might sound a little bit crazy, but is there any possibility that youcan incorporate 4^15 (1,073,741,824) tables into a SQL Database?I mean, is it possible at all? There might be a question of whereanyone would want so many tables, but i'm a bioinformatics guy and I'mtrying to deal with genomic sequences and was coming up with a newalgorithm, where the only limit is the number of tables I can put intoa Database.So, can you please advise if its possible to put in so many tables intoa SQL database? Or is the Bekerley DB better?
if SQL SERVER 2000 only allow 8060 bytes per row, then how can it store images or CLOB data? Is there a way that would let us change the maximum number of bytes per row? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Hello people, I might sound a little bit crazy, but is there any possibility that you can incorporate 1,073,741,824 tables into a SQL Database?
I mean, is it possible at all? There might be a question of where anyone would want so many tables, but i'm a bioinformatics guy and I'm trying to deal with genomic sequences and was coming up with a new algorithm, where the only limit is the number of tables I can put into a Database.
So, can you please advise if its possible to put in so many tables into a SQL database? Or is the Bekerley DB better?
I am reading SQL Server 2000 Black book (Coriolis publisher) and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Optimization guide (Jenney Lynne Fields PH publisher).
In the Black book page 56, it says :"..up to a total of 16 instances. In the optimization guide page 144, it says :"There is no theoretical limit to the number of instances of SQL server you can run simultaneously..."
I take error 610 "Maximum number of databases that may be accessed by a transaction is 8. This number has been exceeded by this query" when I execute a SELECT query.
My db contains two table Employee_detail and Student_Detail.Employee_detail has Emp_id and Student_Detail has stud_id.Now my problem is that i want to get one maximum no from these two table.
I need a small SQL server for up to 10 users. If I understand the EULAs and FAQs correctly, there is no limit on the number of users imposed by the SQL Server 2005 Express license. If so, then the number of users is only limited by the OS's license so all I need is SQL Server 2005 Express (free), Windows XP Pro (10 users limit) and no CALs for either Windows or SQL Server.
I am trying to setup transactional replication between Server A and Server B. There are 265 databases on each server.
I am running SQL Server 2005 on Windows Server 2003. The problem comes in at the 201st database. The message in the SQL Server Agent Error Log is :
Warning,[398] The job (WSSWPG09-EmpirePaint-WSSWPG06-104) has been queued because the maximum number of working threads (400) are already running. This job will be executed as soon as one of the working thread finishes execution.
SQL Server's max worker threads is set to 0. The Distribution, LogReader and T-SQL subsystems have been increased to 200 max_worker_threads.
Is there some other setting (maybe a Windows Registry setting) that can be configured to fix this? Or have I just hit a physical maximum of the processor?
I am upgrading from Access, where you can only have 10 fields in a primary key or unique index. Is this also the limit in SQL Server? If not, what is the limit?
I am adding a table within my vb.net program using New datatable(tblname) function, then adding 22 columns (col01 to col22) to this table using .columns.add (colname) function without any error.The program however throws an exception when trying to assign a value to column number 14 (col14) saying this column does not belong to table tblname. Assigning a value from col01 to col13 is working fine.Is there a limitation on number of columns can be added to a table using code?
I have a problem with a piece of code, which updates some tables using transaction. This process brings the program to a halt when updating large files.
With smaller files, the process finishes without problems.
I have noticed that, if a comment out the "begin transaction" and respective "commit", the same code executes without problems, even when updating large files.
I suspect that there is a limit on the number of records a transaction can hold before a commit is issued. I am surprised however, that SQL Server halts, without messages or warnings.
Is this a configuration issue? If there is a limit on the number of records a transaction can hold, what is this limit:? Anything I can do to have a warning form SQL Server when a situation like this is reached (or indeed to avoid this situation) ?
My team at work has spent the past week troubleshooting performance issues experienced by users of our asp.net 2.x web application. We've got a probe running on one of the web servers that has identified a frequently occuring error that no one has seen before and I can't find anywhere online. MSSQL error "system.data.oledb.oledbcommand.executenonquery(Maximum number of unique SQL exceeded) Has anyone here ever seen this error before?The web server, application, SQL servers and databases all seem to be configured properly, but users are experiencing latency and this frequently occurring error is a mystery to us.
I have a Sqlserver 6.5 production server used for web based applications Compaq 5500 4 GIG RAM, 4 processor
Sql Memory config on that server is 1048576 (which is 2048 MB) and the run value is 640000 (which is 1250 MB). runvalue for user connections was 500
We have only 90 user connections may increase upto 100 depends on the connections. We don't have any overload on that server.
Error: I was seeing "unable to connect maximum no. of 500 configured user connections are already connected" in the error log.
Action Taken:
I increased the user connections to 600 and rebooted the server. Immediately the same error I can see in the error log. But we have only 20 user connections at that time. I can able to connect.
