Hi,
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?
Thanks,
Darrell Young
I was reading this:
"Adding an identity column to a published table is not supported, because it can result in non-convergence when the column is replicated to the Subscriber. The values in the identity column at the Publisher depend on the order in which the rows for the affected table are physically stored. The rows might be stored differently at the Subscriber; therefore the value for the identity column can be different for the same rows."
I don't understand...
If I create a table with an identity column and publish it. Can the values on the subscriber be different when the data is replicated?
Suppose I have a this table:
1 Name1
2 Name2
3 Name3
Column 1 is identity field and column 2 the name of employees.
If I publish this table , the data can be inserted on the subscriber .pe, with 2 name1 and 1 name3 and 1 name2?
What about if the identify fields is a primary key?
Hi ,
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.
Can anyone help ?
Thanks in advance
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 isn€™t
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 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
Dear all,
How does an identity is affected by merge replication? Can sql control it so that there will be no replication conflict?
Here's the scenario, I have several tables with an identity column. the database resides in a server in the head office, there are several remote sites and remote users which will be running sql 7 desktop edition. Each remote will download only the data subset he is allowed to. Each site will be allowed add new rows on several table. Then they will update the head office server through replication.
Thanks
Reden
Sever: sql 2000
Replication: Merge
Issue:
I am having an issue with my audit table, This table is filled by Triggers on various tables through the database. All triggers are defied with "not for replication"
I have allocated 500k ranges, with 80% threshold to the publisher and subscriber databases for this table. The table only holds 225,000 records.
From time to time I get the following error "The identity range managed by replication is full and must be updated by a replication agent. The INSERT conflict occurred in database 'PublicationName', table 'AuditHistory', column 'AuditID'. Sp_adjustpublisheridentityrange can be called to get a new identity range."
When I looked into the issue yesterday I noticed that the identity range being used by replication was 334300001 -> 334799999, however the maximum value in the table was 334300096, meaning that only 95 records were inserted, which means it is no where near the 80% threshold.
Somehow the identity seed on the AuditHistory table had been changed to 334800104, which is outside the allowable range.
My question is what could cause the identity seed to get set to such a high number??
any thoughts would be great!
I have a database table with a simple identity column. As a starting point... when I run the following queries... this is what I get:
SELECT Max(AliasID) FROM Account_Managers
1300006
DBCC CHECKIDENT ('Account_Managers')
Checking identity information: current identity value '1300006', current column value '1300006'.
Now... I set up merge replication, with the plan of allowing SQL Server to manage my identity ranges for me. I set up my ranges to be 100000 on the publication, 100000 on the subscriber, with a threshold of 80.
I would EXPECT to see the constraint
([AliasID]>(1300006) AND [AliasID]<=(1400006)) on the publisher and
([AliasID]>(1400006) AND [AliasID]<=(1500006)) on the subscriber.
However... what I do get is:
([AliasID]>(1300006) AND [AliasID]<=(1400006) OR [AliasID]>(1400006) AND [AliasID]<=(1500006)) on the publisher and
([AliasID]>(1500006) AND [AliasID]<=(1600006) OR [AliasID]>(1600006) AND [AliasID]<=(1700006))
Can anyone tell me why I get the OR... which essentially makes my identity ranges twice as large as they should be?
Thanks in advance.
- Alan D. Nelson
We are running merge replication. My identity value was out of sync and the inserts stopped working. I Reseeded the identity value to 1500000 and ran "sp_adjustpublisheridentity" which set that to the new range (and table constraint)Â in the MSMerge file and table. I discovered my error and Reseeded the table back to 150000. How to I get the new range to be created when it is LESS than 1500000 in the MsMerge file???? Can I use the sp_restoreidentity....???
View 3 Replies View RelatedHi,
I am planning to use transacational replication (instead of merge replication) on my SQL server 2000. My application is already live and is being used by real users.
How can I ensure that replicated data on different server would have exact same values of identity columns and date columns (where every I set default date to getdate())?
It is very important for me to have a mirror image of data (without using clustering servers).
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
-Niraj
Hi all i have setup merge replication with one publisher and 3 subscribers
The replication worked fine for about 2 months then i recieved the following error on all my subscriptions
The Publisher failed to allocate a new set of identity ranges for the subscription.
This can occur when a Publisher or a republishing Subscriber has run out of identity
ranges to allocate to its own Subscribers or when an identity column data type does
not support an additional identity range allocation. If a republishing Subscriber has
run out of identity ranges, synchronize the republishing Subscriber to obtain more
identity ranges before restarting the synchronization. If a Publisher runs out of identit
(Source: MSSQL_REPL, Error number: MSSQL_REPL-2147199417)
Get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL-2147199417
I have updated my sql server to service pack 2
The publisher is sql Standard edition and the subscribers are Express edition
Any help would be great
Thanx
Hello I currently have a merge replication set up with 4 subscribers. A primary field for one of my tables is set to a integer indetity.
What Ive noticed is that depending on which database I enter data into, the indentity field (primary key) is set within a certain range I.e
On Server 1 - Values start from 1 then 2,3,4 etc etc
Server 2 - 24001, 24002, 24003 etc etc
Server 3 - 46001, 46002, 46003 etc etc
Server 4 - 68001, 68002, 68003
My question is what happens when these ranges eventually conflict? Do they automatically gain a different range such as 142 001, 142 002 etc etc?
Ive tried looking in SQL Help, and a quick search here, Im just after some confirmation before I implement this to my app.
cheers
Hello,
We have a couple of tables that can have quite a bit of data each day prior to replication. Can we increase the default values for a table for each subscription? For example we have a table called table1 and on the sqlexpress client they could enter in 10000 rows a day, on table2 it's just 100 rows a day. How can we increase the values to where we do not get the error for table1 stating that the insert failed because it conflicted with the identity range check constraint. Thanks in advance.
Hi All;
I am trying to set up Merge Replication on a database and want to set the IdentityRange Management to Auto for all my tables which use a Identity column.
In the wizard, on Article Properties Page, I can do this by selecting a Table, and going for its properties, but this is a tedious task as I have ~300 tables to set this property on.
Is there another way or a global location where I can set the property to true and even mention the ranges and the threshold, so that I dont have to pick each table and set it individually.
I am also aware of the fact that I can Generate a Script and modify it and run that, but I was looking for some way to do this in the wizard.
Thanks!
(Long post)
I have a production database with about half the tables using
IDENTITY columns for PRIMARY KEYS. This system is configured as both
a Publisher and a Distributor. We are using Transactional Replication
without updates. The SQL Server Agent runs every hour to pick up any
changes and replicate them to the Subscriber (another SQL Server
machine configured as our failover server).
Both servers are running SQL Server 7.0 (original, no service packs)
under Windows NT 4.0 (SP4).
The failover server (the replication Subscriber) will only be used if
the primary server goes down. And hopefully, only for a short time
before the primary server comes back online. During the time that the
failover is actually being used, the application will not make any
changes to the database.
The IDENTITY values that are replicated need to stay with their
original values. The replication process CANNOT assign new values to
these columns when there are inserted into the database on the
Publisher (i.e. failover server)
My question is: According to the documention, I can add 'NOT FOR
REPLICATION' to the IDENTITY columns and the values will be
preserved. But a collegue of mine says that resets the IDENTITY
sequence on the subscriber and the 2nd time a row gets inserted on
the Publisher, the values get messed up. On his system, he calls a
stored procedure for the tables with IDENTITY columns, and in the
stored procedure, he executes a 'SET IDENTITY_INSERT OFF', then
INSERTS the row, then 'SET IDENTITY_INSERT ON'. He claims that this
approach solved his issues with IDENTITY columns.
Who is right? Do I have to create a stored procedure for replication
for every table with an IDENTITY column, or can I just add 'NOT FOR
REPLICATION' and SQL Server will handle the rest?
NOTE: Upgrading to SQL Server 2000 is NOT an option right now.
Although, if a Service Pack for 7 fixes this, that might be an option.
Thanks in advance for any help you can shed on this issue.
Dave
We are trying to run replication from one server to another. Most of the tables in the publishing database have identity columns set. At one point the subscribing database had a match of identity columns and primary keys matching the publishing database. Obviously with a primary key set on the subscriber there would be conflicts with duplicate key inserts. We disabled the identity columms and droped the indexes and the data was able to replicate over. However, we discovered that the identity columns, which are used to generate id's on many of our tables, were not replicating over to the subscriber. In fact a null value was being inserted into the subsriber database.
Anyone seen this before? What, if there is one, is the solution?
Thanks,
Brad
hi there.
I was wondering is there any way that you can use an Identity Column on both a subcribing and Publishing table in Replication,
I am receiving errors when I run Replication with Identity Columns,
Thanks in advance
Fin
I think I want to use merge replication but filter out one column but when I'm setting up the publication I only see row filtering available?
Is this just not possible?
Thanks for any help
Dan
Hi,
I am experiencing a wired problem withe merge replication and SQL 2000 SP4.
We had replication working for 4 years without a problem, one of the table that we replicate has been growing in columns, now it has 55 columns.
I have noticed a problem, when I update the last column on the table and waits for the change to be updated on the subscriber the change is not there. But if I replicate the first 40 columns it works.
Changes made:
1) Upgraded to SP4
2) Added some extra fields using sp_addreplcolumn
Is this a known bug? Any ideas?
Regards
Hi
We are using HTTPS merge replication
Our setup is as follows:
subscription.CreateSyncAgentByDefault = False -- I wrote a windows service to synchronise
subscription.UseWebSynchronization = True
subscription.InternetSecurityMode = AuthenticationMethod.BasicAuthentication
subscription.SubscriberType = MergeSubscriberType.Anonymous
Some of our subscribers have low-quality internet connections - how do I get the agent at the publisher/distributer use a slower profile - I've read How to: Work with Replication Agent Profiles (Replication Transact-SQL Programming)
but can't see where you specifiy an alternate agent profile
On the distributer / publisher (same machine) I go to replication monitor -> Warnings and Agents - I can only set the profile for the snapshot agent....
thanks
Bruce
Dear all,
We have an application that use merge replication between MSDE and Devices with SQL CE.
Due to a major application changes, we have to change our replication on all our workstation. Our process is the following:
- drop current replication
- recreate our replication
After first check our replication seems to work but after some test we have identify that all identity ranges have been reset on the workstation. As side effect, device start to reuse existing range and also existing value in the range.
- Have you ever encounter this type of issue?
- What can create it?
- Is our approach fully inappropriate?
Please let me know if you need more information,
Best regards,
Dear all participants,
I manage complete online system for two locations, connected via dialup lease line. I have to used merge replication for the same data should be at both locations. It is working fine, I don’t like disturbe it but current requirement is addition of two column in one table which one as also use in merge replication.
How I can add aforesaid columns in table x, column name c1 numeric , c2 character?
What is impact on replication?
Let me know step by step.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks R.Mall
We are running merge replication, SQL Server 2005 Enterprise with SQL Mobile 2005 (Windows Mobile 5) subscribers. Partitions are filtered on HOST_ID.
Ocassionally we experience a situation where a subscriber experiences an unusually long synchronization duration, and upon examining Replication Monitor, it appears that twice the number of rows, or X the number of rows (up to 7 times the number of rows) that should have been inserted are recorded as synchronized for the session: once the normal amount as inserts and once the normal amount as updates. This occurs for all tables in the subscription. This occurs on a first time synchronization to an empty subscriber database where there should be only inserts taking place.
I have examined the snapshot partition folders for these users on the file system and they appear to be identical in size and content as other subscribers. Checking the last partition snapshot job run and other characteristics for the the subscriber in question, everything appears to be the same as other subscribers functioning normally.
The HOST_ID for us is an employee ID used to filter employee specific data. I have seen this happen if the subscriber changes the value for the HOST_ID used in filtering, after the mobile database has already been populated (2 employees attempt to use the same mobile device and database). But, we have seen this happen recently where the HOST_ID was apparantly never changed midstream.
This just started happening recently. The only modification around the same time frame was the implementation of a custom business logic handler/custom conflict resolver that performs like "Latest Wins" but has logic added to update the a last-update datetime column for selected transaction tables at time of synchronization, so that an SSIS job can detect the changed rows for copying incremental database changes to another application database. This all seems to be working perfectly.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Matt
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?
Hi,
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?
Please reply asap.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Swapna.B.
Hi,
View 7 Replies View RelatedWhen I try to open the subscribers tab in the publisher and distributor properties in SQL Enterprise Manager I get the following error:
SQL Enterprise Manager could not retrieve the list of registered subscribers.
Error 8152: String or binary data will be truncated
Anyone who has experienced similar problems or has a solution?
Best Regards
MF
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.
Can anyone please let me know?.
Thank you
AK
Hi All,
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 )
Replicate ddl setting is not working if multiple subscribers are used...
View 2 Replies View RelatedSql Server 2000
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.
Any thoughts on this is greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
What is the main difference between snapshot and transactional and merge replication?
View 5 Replies View RelatedHello,I'm getting the following error message when I try add a row using aStored Procedure."The identity range managed by replication is full and must be updatedby a replication agent".I read up on the subject and have tried the following solutionsaccording to MSDN without any luck.(http://support.Microsoft.com/kb/304706 )sp_adjustpublisheridentityrange (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa239401(SQL.80).aspx ) has no effectFor Testing:I've reloaded everything from scratch, created the pulications from byrunning the sql scripts generated,created replication snapshots andstarted the agents.I've checked the current Identity values in the Agent Table:DBCC CHECKIDENT ('Agent', NORESEED)Checking identity information: current identity value '18606', currentcolumn value '18606'.I check the Table to make sure there will be no conflicts with theprimary key:SELECT AgentID FROM Agent ORDER BY AgentID DESC18603 is the largest AgentID in the table.Using the Table Article Properties in the Publications PropertiesDialog, I can see values of:Range Size at Publisher: 100,000Range Size at Subscribers: 100New range @ percentage: 80In my mind this means that the Publisher will assign a new range whenthe Current Indentity value goes over 80,000?The Identity range for this table cannot be exhausted! I'm not surewhat to try next.Please! any insight will be of great help!Regards,Bm
View 1 Replies View Related