Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Two way replication

2 posts in Replication Last posting was on 2006-02-27 17:32:31.0Z
Rodd Graham Posted on 2006-02-25 11:34:42.0Z
Reply-To: "Rodd Graham" <rodd@grahamautomation.com>
From: "Rodd Graham" <rodd@grahamautomation.com>
Newsgroups: Advantage.Replication
Subject: Two way replication
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:34:42 -0600
Lines: 13
Organization: Graham Automation Systems
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.148.136.249
Message-ID: <440040b1@solutions.advantagedatabase.com>
X-Trace: 25 Feb 2006 04:34:09 -0700, 66.148.136.249
Path: solutions.advantagedatabase.com!solutions.advantagedatabase.com!66.148.136.249
Xref: solutions.advantagedatabase.com Advantage.Replication:88
Article PK: 1133946

If a table replication is setup in both directions using a primary key AND
you do not implement any conflict triggers AND the same row is
simultaneously updated in both replicas, what do you end up with?

The documentation makes it sound like the replication would be applied in
both directions overwriting the previous contents and loop detection would
prevent a cycle from occuring. Does this mean that each replica will
contain the row that originated on the opposite server and the rows will end
up stable but different?

Rodd


Mark Wilkins Posted on 2006-02-27 17:32:31.0Z
From: "Mark Wilkins" <tired@of.spam>
Newsgroups: Advantage.Replication
References: <440040b1@solutions.advantagedatabase.com>
Subject: Re: Two way replication
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:32:31 -0700
Lines: 30
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.102.102.12
Message-ID: <440336ec@solutions.advantagedatabase.com>
X-Trace: 27 Feb 2006 10:29:16 -0700, 198.102.102.12
Path: solutions.advantagedatabase.com!solutions.advantagedatabase.com!198.102.102.12
Xref: solutions.advantagedatabase.com Advantage.Replication:89
Article PK: 1133947

Hi Rodd,

Yes that is correct. Without a conflict trigger, the last applied update
will be the final result, and it is possible for the replicated data from
the other server to be the last update at both locations. For example, if
update X occurs at server A at the "exact" same time as update Y occurs at
server B (same record), then it is possible for the respective updates to be
transmitted simultaneously to the other server. So the end result would be
that server A ends up with value Y and server B ends up with value X.

Mark Wilkins
Advantage R&D

"Rodd Graham" <rodd@grahamautomation.com> wrote in message
news:440040b1@solutions.advantagedatabase.com...
> If a table replication is setup in both directions using a primary key AND
> you do not implement any conflict triggers AND the same row is
> simultaneously updated in both replicas, what do you end up with?
>
> The documentation makes it sound like the replication would be applied in
> both directions overwriting the previous contents and loop detection would
> prevent a cycle from occuring. Does this mean that each replica will
> contain the row that originated on the opposite server and the rows will
> end up stable but different?
>
> Rodd
>