Merge Replication Topology

Hi everyone,
Is it possible to have three publishers who also subscribe to
publications from each other? All are pull subscriptions participating
in merge replication. The physical design is represented by a triangle.
My understanding of the suppported replication topology precludes such
a design - is this the case?
Paul
Hey Paul,
Triangle, or Peer To Peer Topologies are not supported in SQL2000.
You can 'fake' it with some heavy duty partitioning if you need to.
Take a peek at SQL2005 for that kind of functionality out of the box.
Donna Lambert
"Waterfall" wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Is it possible to have three publishers who also subscribe to
> publications from each other? All are pull subscriptions participating
> in merge replication. The physical design is represented by a triangle.
> My understanding of the suppported replication topology precludes such
> a design - is this the case?
> Paul
>
|||Thanks Donna. It is good to know that SQL2005 will support peer-to-peer
replication topology.
I have another question. Is it possible to replicate to a table
containing an identity column and a natural key using merge or
transactional replication, where the identity values are not preserved?
Paul
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

Merge replication publisher subscriber

Hello
I have Publisher and 200 subscribers
I need to unload Publisher having added N intermediate Publishers
on 50 subscribers to everyone
And each intermediate publisher stores data only for it's owns
subscribers.
Is this possible?
Do I need for subscription that are created to be with ' global '
sync_typ?
Is there a particular order in witch a publications and a subscription
are created?
Thanks for your helps
ps : sql2000 SP4,8.00.2187Yes this is called republishing and it is recommended when you have large
numbers of merge subscribers. It does require the global priority between
the republishers. You create the main publisher first and then the
downstream ones.
--
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
"maroucia" <maroucia@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161252010.072061.165570@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello
> I have Publisher and 200 subscribers
> I need to unload Publisher having added N intermediate Publishers
> on 50 subscribers to everyone
> And each intermediate publisher stores data only for it's owns
> subscribers.
> Is this possible?
> Do I need for subscription that are created to be with ' global '
> sync_typ?
> Is there a particular order in witch a publications and a subscription
> are created?
> Thanks for your helps
> ps : sql2000 SP4,8.00.2187
>|||http://www.replicationanswers.com/Republishing2005.asp

Merge Replication Issue

Hi,
My Merge replication setup for a particular table has 1 subscriber and
muliple publishers. Each publisher will push the subscription to the
subscriber.
However, I am encountering some issues with this setup.
Findings:
Any record inserted/deleted/updated in either Publisher 1 or Publisher 2
will be reflected in Subscriber.
Any record inserted/deleted/updated in Subscriber will be reflected in
Publisher 1 and Publisher 2.
Issue:
Any record replicated in Subscriber from one publisher is NOT reflected in
the other publisher (e.g. Insert new record in Publisher 1, inserted record
gets replicated in Subscriber but does not insert this new record in
Publisher 2, vice versa)
I will like to find out if there is any setting or consideration that I need
to make with regards to my merge replication setup, in order to allow changes
made in any of the publisher to be replicated in the subscriber and then
reflected in other publishers.
Will definitely appreciate any of your inputs and advice.
Thanks In Advanace,
Roy Tan
Had made changes to my configuration. I have a single publisher and multiple
subscribers and everything seems to work fine. I am just wondering when do we
actually apply a "single subscriber and multiple publisher" scenario.
"Roy Tan" wrote:

> Hi,
> My Merge replication setup for a particular table has 1 subscriber and
> muliple publishers. Each publisher will push the subscription to the
> subscriber.
> However, I am encountering some issues with this setup.
> Findings:
> Any record inserted/deleted/updated in either Publisher 1 or Publisher 2
> will be reflected in Subscriber.
> Any record inserted/deleted/updated in Subscriber will be reflected in
> Publisher 1 and Publisher 2.
> Issue:
> Any record replicated in Subscriber from one publisher is NOT reflected in
> the other publisher (e.g. Insert new record in Publisher 1, inserted record
> gets replicated in Subscriber but does not insert this new record in
> Publisher 2, vice versa)
> I will like to find out if there is any setting or consideration that I need
> to make with regards to my merge replication setup, in order to allow changes
> made in any of the publisher to be replicated in the subscriber and then
> reflected in other publishers.
> Will definitely appreciate any of your inputs and advice.
> --
> Thanks In Advanace,
> Roy Tan

Merge replication between two publishers with dynamic filters

Hello,
I am working on a distributed database system in which each site is a
publisher of a filtered set of data. It is necessary that a publisher can
subscribe to another publisher.
I am using merge replication, dynamic filters and push subscriptions. Each
site publishes the same tables with another filter.
When I test this scenario, I notice that the merge agent replicates only the
changes of the publisher to the subscriber. A change on the subscriber (thas
has also a publication on the same tables) is not replicated to the publisher.
Does someone know a solution for this?
Is it possible to have (bidirectional) merge replication between two
publishers with dynamic filters?
I hope someone can help me with this.
thanks in advance!
Marco Broenink
Could you please describe in more detail your publisher subscriber
configurations and the filters.
If the table has a column that you are using to filter from Publisher to
Subscriber and then make this subscriber a republisher and then try to use
the same column as the filter column, there is only set of data at the
republisher/subscriber.
I am not clear on your setup. Could you please repost with more elaborate
setup steps?
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4D84B8-A940-46BF-AC9A-5FF5098D2200@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am working on a distributed database system in which each site is a
> publisher of a filtered set of data. It is necessary that a publisher can
> subscribe to another publisher.
> I am using merge replication, dynamic filters and push subscriptions. Each
> site publishes the same tables with another filter.
> When I test this scenario, I notice that the merge agent replicates only
the
> changes of the publisher to the subscriber. A change on the subscriber
(thas
> has also a publication on the same tables) is not replicated to the
publisher.
> Does someone know a solution for this?
> Is it possible to have (bidirectional) merge replication between two
> publishers with dynamic filters?
> I hope someone can help me with this.
> thanks in advance!
> Marco Broenink
|||Thanks for your response!
I am using a dynamic filter. This filter uses a function. This function
needs the hostname and a filter-column to dermine if the row needs to be
filtered. The filter looks like:
SELECT <published_columns> FROM [dbo].[PublishedTable]
WHERE 1 = [dbo].[fn_DynamicFilter]([FilterColumn], HOST_NAME())
The filterfunction uses a mapping table that maps the contents of the
[FilterColumn] to hostnames.
With this mapping table, each publisher publishes its own part of all data.
So the publications of two publishers do not overlap. But the publications
are on the same tables.
Problem with this configuration is that changes of a subscriber are not
replicated to the publisher. It looks like that the subscriber's own
publication is blocking this.
I hope you can help me with this.
greetings, Marco.
"Mahesh [MSFT]" wrote:

> Could you please describe in more detail your publisher subscriber
> configurations and the filters.
> If the table has a column that you are using to filter from Publisher to
> Subscriber and then make this subscriber a republisher and then try to use
> the same column as the filter column, there is only set of data at the
> republisher/subscriber.
> I am not clear on your setup. Could you please repost with more elaborate
> setup steps?
> Hope that helps
> --Mahesh
> [ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
> rights. ]
> "Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4D84B8-A940-46BF-AC9A-5FF5098D2200@.microsoft.com...
> the
> (thas
> publisher.
>
>
|||I have used 'global' subscriptions in stead of 'local' and this problem is
solved.
Now the changes are also replicated from subscriber to publisher.
Unfortunately, I have a new problem.
I use replication with dynamic filters. In my system it is possible that
data is added to the subscriber that doesnot pass the filter. When
replicating, this data is deleted at the subscriber and added to the
publisher.
How can I prevent this delete & insert ?
thanks in advance, Marco
"Marco Broenink" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your response!
> I am using a dynamic filter. This filter uses a function. This function
> needs the hostname and a filter-column to dermine if the row needs to be
> filtered. The filter looks like:
> SELECT <published_columns> FROM [dbo].[PublishedTable]
> WHERE 1 = [dbo].[fn_DynamicFilter]([FilterColumn], HOST_NAME())
> The filterfunction uses a mapping table that maps the contents of the
> [FilterColumn] to hostnames.
> With this mapping table, each publisher publishes its own part of all data.
> So the publications of two publishers do not overlap. But the publications
> are on the same tables.
> Problem with this configuration is that changes of a subscriber are not
> replicated to the publisher. It looks like that the subscriber's own
> publication is blocking this.
> I hope you can help me with this.
> greetings, Marco.
> "Mahesh [MSFT]" wrote:
|||Glad that you could work around your first problem, though to be frank, I am
still unclear of the setup.
Regarding your new problem,
If each subscriber inserts data that corresponds to only its subset of data
then you could try using a default of some kind to the tables. Like hostname
or something that will map appropriately to the filter condition and make it
pass. So everytime an insert happens at the subscriber, the filter condition
is met and then is successfully propagated to the publisher and does not get
deleted at the subscriber in turn.
Please note that this can work only if the subscriber always makes
"good" inserts, that is to say that the subscriber never expects to insert
data (that does not satisfy the filter) and then in turn expects the data to
be deleted by the publisher.
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:664513B1-B610-453F-B033-6FD1B8720BE1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have used 'global' subscriptions in stead of 'local' and this problem is
> solved.
> Now the changes are also replicated from subscriber to publisher.
> Unfortunately, I have a new problem.
> I use replication with dynamic filters. In my system it is possible that
> data is added to the subscriber that doesnot pass the filter. When
> replicating, this data is deleted at the subscriber and added to the
> publisher.
> How can I prevent this delete & insert ?
> thanks in advance, Marco
>
> "Marco Broenink" wrote:
data.[vbcol=seagreen]
publications[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
elaborate[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
publisher can[vbcol=seagreen]
subscriptions. Each[vbcol=seagreen]
only[vbcol=seagreen]
subscriber[vbcol=seagreen]
|||thanks again for the response.
In my topology, I have different publishers of the same table. These
publishers use different filters. A subscriber can be subscribed to different
publishers.
For example:
Site A publishes table1
Site B publishes table1
Site C is subscribed to Site A table1. This subscribtion is filtered with a
dynamic filter F1.
Site C is also subscribed to Site B table1. This subscribtion is filtered
with another dynamic filter F2.
The different dynamic filters make sure that the subscription to Site A do
not overlap the subscription to Site B.
Thus: The table1 of C contains a subset of table1 of A and a subset of
table1 of B.
So: table1 of C contains two types of data:
- data that meets filtercondition F1 and doesnot meet filtercondition F2.
- data that meets filtercondition F2 and doesnot meet filtercondition F1.
So the problem is: The subscriber will contain data that doesnot meet one of
the filterconditions. When replicating to Site A (filter F1), data of filter
F2 is deleted. When replicating to Site B (filter F2), data of filter F1 is
deleted.
So in this scenario, I think it is not possible to make only 'good' inserts
because it violates always one of the two filtersconditions.
I hope you know a solution. Or am I trying to do something impossible?
greetings, Marco Broenink
"Mahesh [MSFT]" wrote:

> Glad that you could work around your first problem, though to be frank, I am
> still unclear of the setup.
> Regarding your new problem,
> If each subscriber inserts data that corresponds to only its subset of data
> then you could try using a default of some kind to the tables. Like hostname
> or something that will map appropriately to the filter condition and make it
> pass. So everytime an insert happens at the subscriber, the filter condition
> is met and then is successfully propagated to the publisher and does not get
> deleted at the subscriber in turn.
> Please note that this can work only if the subscriber always makes
> "good" inserts, that is to say that the subscriber never expects to insert
> data (that does not satisfy the filter) and then in turn expects the data to
> be deleted by the publisher.
> Hope that helps
> --Mahesh
> [ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
> rights. ]
> "Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:664513B1-B610-453F-B033-6FD1B8720BE1@.microsoft.com...
> data.
> publications
> to
> use
> elaborate
> message
> a
> publisher can
> subscriptions. Each
> only
> subscriber
>
>
|||Hi Marco,
Please correct me if I understood wrong:
So what you are saying is SiteA and SiteB are publishing the same tables,
but are not replicating to each other. Is that right?
But in turn are replicating that table to SiteC.
This is not supported.
In the first place, When SiteC subscribed to SiteA, it gets the table from
SiteA. Now when you configure SiteC to subscribe from SiteB, how did you
configure? Did you configure a no-sync subscription? If not, and you used
all the default settings then actually you will not even be able to complete
the subscription because the table at SiteC (got from SiteA) will be
attempted to drop and recreate with the scripts from SiteB which will fail.
If you want to do what you are trying to do, one solution is to have table1
at SiteA and replicate it to SiteC with the proper filter. Have table2 at
SiteB and replicate that to SiteC with the proper filter.
On the subscriber you can have a view on those two tables that will give you
a combined view for the results. But you may not be able to make DMLs on the
view directly. You will still need to do the DMLs on the actual tables.
Hope that helps
--Mahesh
[ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
rights. ]
"Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BADB7E44-D9C9-4333-B69E-9F5B33314BEF@.microsoft.com...
> thanks again for the response.
> In my topology, I have different publishers of the same table. These
> publishers use different filters. A subscriber can be subscribed to
different
> publishers.
> For example:
> Site A publishes table1
> Site B publishes table1
> Site C is subscribed to Site A table1. This subscribtion is filtered with
a
> dynamic filter F1.
> Site C is also subscribed to Site B table1. This subscribtion is filtered
> with another dynamic filter F2.
> The different dynamic filters make sure that the subscription to Site A do
> not overlap the subscription to Site B.
> Thus: The table1 of C contains a subset of table1 of A and a subset of
> table1 of B.
> So: table1 of C contains two types of data:
> - data that meets filtercondition F1 and doesnot meet filtercondition F2.
> - data that meets filtercondition F2 and doesnot meet filtercondition F1.
> So the problem is: The subscriber will contain data that doesnot meet one
of
> the filterconditions. When replicating to Site A (filter F1), data of
filter
> F2 is deleted. When replicating to Site B (filter F2), data of filter F1
is
> deleted.
> So in this scenario, I think it is not possible to make only 'good'
inserts[vbcol=seagreen]
> because it violates always one of the two filtersconditions.
> I hope you know a solution. Or am I trying to do something impossible?
> greetings, Marco Broenink
>
> "Mahesh [MSFT]" wrote:
I am[vbcol=seagreen]
data[vbcol=seagreen]
hostname[vbcol=seagreen]
make it[vbcol=seagreen]
condition[vbcol=seagreen]
get[vbcol=seagreen]
insert[vbcol=seagreen]
data to[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
problem is[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
function[vbcol=seagreen]
to be[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
all[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
Publisher[vbcol=seagreen]
try to[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
replicates[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
two[vbcol=seagreen]
|||thanks for the help!
Marco
"Mahesh [MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi Marco,
> Please correct me if I understood wrong:
> So what you are saying is SiteA and SiteB are publishing the same tables,
> but are not replicating to each other. Is that right?
> But in turn are replicating that table to SiteC.
> This is not supported.
> In the first place, When SiteC subscribed to SiteA, it gets the table from
> SiteA. Now when you configure SiteC to subscribe from SiteB, how did you
> configure? Did you configure a no-sync subscription? If not, and you used
> all the default settings then actually you will not even be able to complete
> the subscription because the table at SiteC (got from SiteA) will be
> attempted to drop and recreate with the scripts from SiteB which will fail.
> If you want to do what you are trying to do, one solution is to have table1
> at SiteA and replicate it to SiteC with the proper filter. Have table2 at
> SiteB and replicate that to SiteC with the proper filter.
> On the subscriber you can have a view on those two tables that will give you
> a combined view for the results. But you may not be able to make DMLs on the
> view directly. You will still need to do the DMLs on the actual tables.
> Hope that helps
> --Mahesh
> [ This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no
> rights. ]
> "Marco Broenink" <MarcoBroenink@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BADB7E44-D9C9-4333-B69E-9F5B33314BEF@.microsoft.com...
> different
> a
> of
> filter
> is
> inserts
> I am
> data
> hostname
> make it
> condition
> get
> insert
> data to
> message
> problem is
> that
> function
> to be
> the
> all
> not
> Publisher
> try to
> the
> no
> in
> is
> replicates
> the
> two
>
>