Merge replication: subscriber jobs missing.

I didn't actually see this but my customer swears:
Merge replication subscriber sql 2000 sp3a had the jobs disappear from the
agent for about 10 hours and the publisher said it could not connect. This
morning the jobs are back and replication was able to be started manually.
Help.
There was a set of conditions which would cause the replication agents to
disappear. Basically if you restored a published database, and then create a
publication with the same name as the old one, everything would disappear.
By chance, where are the agents running? On the subscriber or 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
"SQLdba" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:770297FF-ADE0-46FA-A235-93D0007C62BC@.microsoft.com...
>I didn't actually see this but my customer swears:
> Merge replication subscriber sql 2000 sp3a had the jobs disappear from the
> agent for about 10 hours and the publisher said it could not connect.
> This
> morning the jobs are back and replication was able to be started manually.
> Help.
|||They run on the publisher. When you say everything would disappear, did it
ever come back?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> There was a set of conditions which would cause the replication agents to
> disappear. Basically if you restored a published database, and then create a
> publication with the same name as the old one, everything would disappear.
> By chance, where are the agents running? On the subscriber or 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
>
> "SQLdba" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:770297FF-ADE0-46FA-A235-93D0007C62BC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Not until I removed some publications.
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
"SQLdba" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E20EC89D-A27E-4C0A-9B2F-4311220DFDDF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> They run on the publisher. When you say everything would disappear, did
> it
> ever come back?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
|||Two things. First, it's transactional replication, not merge. Sorry for
that mistake.
Second, I was able to see the jobs when I looked at the server and was able
to restart the replication manually.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Not until I removed some publications.
> --
> 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
>
> "SQLdba" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:E20EC89D-A27E-4C0A-9B2F-4311220DFDDF@.microsoft.com...
>
>

merge replication w PocketPC and trigger order

Hi
We've got a problen in a customer with SQL Server 2000 SP3 and merge
replication with PocketPC
We have some triggers FOR UPDATE on the same field used to distribute in
replication settings, so I suspect sometimes our triggers didn't work, and
sometimes the first trigger that has been executed were the replication
trigger.
Can I use the sp_settriggerorder to set the order to execute, setting the
replication trihgger as last in execution?
Thanks
Yes you can, I normally make them execute first though.
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
"Ricardo Snchez" <Ricardo Snchez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:2BA27F4E-0454-4DC0-9DC2-46CD14C7E368@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We've got a problen in a customer with SQL Server 2000 SP3 and merge
> replication with PocketPC
> We have some triggers FOR UPDATE on the same field used to distribute in
> replication settings, so I suspect sometimes our triggers didn't work, and
> sometimes the first trigger that has been executed were the replication
> trigger.
> Can I use the sp_settriggerorder to set the order to execute, setting the
> replication trihgger as last in execution?
> Thanks
sql

Merge Replication limit running in continuous mode

Hi,
We have a customer site running merge replication with a
publisher/distributer and 12 subscribers. All the merge agents are running in
continuous mode. It seems that two of the agents are always failed, or don't
last long. Is this directly related to the "number of concurrent merge
processes" number? It looks like because there are 10 merge agents *always*
running, the other two don't get a look in. Is this correct?
We can increase this number to 20 and the site seems to run ok, but we've
been hearing rumours that any number past 10 concurrent merge processes gets
unstable. What's the MS position on this?
What's the recommended solution to this situation? Schedule the agents
instead of continuous mode?
What is the error message generated by these two always failing agents?
Do you have the "limit the number of concurrent merge processes to the
following" option checked and set to 10.
What happens is that for long running merge agents the agents will timeout
or deadlock themselves, so MS advised you to limit the number that run
concurrently.
If you do choose this option you have to configure your agents to wait a
longer time before timing out. To do this right click on your merge agents,
select agent properties, click on the Steps tab, and double click on Run
Agent. Place focus in the commands text box, press End, and press the space
bar. enter -StartQueueTimeout 120
This will have the effect of having these two failing merge agents of
waiting up to 2 minutes for the first 10 merge agents in the queue to finish
their work.
I am not sure what the rational for 10 was. The fact it seems to work fine
when you bump it up to 20 seems to indicate that this throttling is not
optimal for you. I suspect that you did not use StartQueueTimeout option.
Running the agents in continuous mode will have no effect. The agents poll
by default every minute, so after the agent completes it will go to sleep
for a minute, and any agents in the queue will have their timeslice.
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
"Sydney" <hsc@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:5C49D704-C649-41FA-8686-3EA92151867F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have a customer site running merge replication with a
> publisher/distributer and 12 subscribers. All the merge agents are running
> in
> continuous mode. It seems that two of the agents are always failed, or
> don't
> last long. Is this directly related to the "number of concurrent merge
> processes" number? It looks like because there are 10 merge agents
> *always*
> running, the other two don't get a look in. Is this correct?
> We can increase this number to 20 and the site seems to run ok, but we've
> been hearing rumours that any number past 10 concurrent merge processes
> gets
> unstable. What's the MS position on this?
> What's the recommended solution to this situation? Schedule the agents
> instead of continuous mode?
>