By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,064 Members | 1,445 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,064 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Server for replication over the Internet

P: n/a
I have a database that needs to be replicated over the Internet. I was
hoping it would be a simple task, but apparently it is not. I've started
browsing the msdn article on the topic. In the meantime, I am wondering who
might be able to host a server on the Internet that meets such requirements.
If anybody has had any experience with this, and/or if you can recommend a
host who meets said requirements, I'd appreciate it if you'd post.

Here's the msdn article: http://tinyurl.com/6dfjc

Thanks!!!

dt
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
Have u tried looking at MS Sharepoint, i think thats the name of it.
David

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a

<da********@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
Have u tried looking at MS Sharepoint, i think thats the name of it.
David


Hi David,

Thanks for the suggestion, I took a look. Sharepoint is used to make
"collaborative web pages".

http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/


Mike
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
Ahhhh, yes - i just looked it up myself. I think there is another
product that allows the sharing of files (could be used a weak form of
replication), i've given you the wrong name. I seem to remember (a very
over enthusiastic collegue telling me about something that does it).
Dave

Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a

<da********@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Ahhhh, yes - i just looked it up myself. I think there is another
product that allows the sharing of files (could be used a weak form of
replication), i've given you the wrong name. I seem to remember (a very
over enthusiastic collegue telling me about something that does it).
Dave


The real problem is the file size. If it weren't for that, people could just
email replicas all over the place.

There is a "partial replica wizard" or something like that. Maybe just
replicating the data will make the files small enough to email, and if the
application changes then we can just re-distribute.

Hmmm... maybe I should split this into a front-end/backend and then just
replicate the backend. Its worth trying. Re-distributing a front end
wouldn't be a problem.

dt
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
Yes good idea, that will save you a lot of space. A technique i've seen
used is a zipped copy of a back end which is ftp'd at the end of every
day. The company doing it has sites all over the UK. It seems to work
quite nicely, in thier case they are getting a copy of the databases to
collate data.

Are you wanting to have several different sites constantly updating
data - or is the "One replication a day" good enough?

Dave

Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
da********@lycos.co.uk wrote in
news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com:
Yes good idea, that will save you a lot of space. A technique i've
seen used is a zipped copy of a back end which is ftp'd at the end
of every day. The company doing it has sites all over the UK. It
seems to work quite nicely, in thier case they are getting a copy
of the databases to collate data.


This is a dreadful idea for replication, as each copy shipped back
and forth gets a new ReplicaID when it is open, and is then,
effectively, deleted when the next copy arrives. That means you'll
have multiple ReplicaIDs with the same file name, which means the
copied-over replicas are what we call "dead replicas," i.e.,
unrecoverable. If any replication errors develop, your entire
replica set could end up completely hosed.

This is not what replication was intended for. Read all the
replication articles on MichKa's website:

http://www.trigeminal.com

I've done what is described and it caused terrible problems that
were only resolved by recreating the replica set from scratch.
Fortunately, we lost no data, but it cost thousands of dollars in
downtime for the client (as well as all the hours it took me to
recover the data from multiple replicas manually).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Daven Thrice" <da*********@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
news:Ekryd.148$Q%4.145@fed1read06:
I have a database that needs to be replicated over the Internet. I
was hoping it would be a simple task, but apparently it is not.
I've started browsing the msdn article on the topic. In the
meantime, I am wondering who might be able to host a server on the
Internet that meets such requirements. If anybody has had any
experience with this, and/or if you can recommend a host who meets
said requirements, I'd appreciate it if you'd post.


Don't pay any attention to the Microsoft documentation on Jet
replication, as it mostly reflects the dreams of marketing rather
than actual experience with replication over the long haul. Some of
the original documentation was *very* bad, recommending techniques
that were extremely dangerous, but some of that has been corrected
over the years (though not all of it).

Internet replication requires that the synchronizer process be
running on an NT box running IIS and FTP services. So far as I know,
no commercial ISP offers this service because the support costs
would be astronomical (especially given that the synchronizer cannot
run as a service, so that the service would always have to be logged
on as a user and locked).

Secondly, since Internet replication is so dependent on proper
configuration of IIS and FTP and permissions and networking on both
ends, it breaks any time a butterfly sneezes in Tahiti (according to
reports I've read in microsoft.public.access.replication -- I've
never contemplated using it myself, because of the dependence on
IIS, which I will never force any client to install as it's so
incredibly insecure and unreliable).

You have a couple of alternatives:

1. if you can set up a VPN across a WAN, you should have not
difficulty setting up plain old indirect replication. Indirect
replication works with normal Windows networking, and the connection
would have to remain open for the synchronizer to do its job (or
you'd have to programmatically open the connection before
synchronizing). I've never done this, but I don't see why it
shouldn't work. The key point is that replication depends on a
networked connection.

2. abandon replication entirely, and host the application for remote
users on a Windows Terminal Server. This is the direction I've gone
in with all my clients who need to support remote users. It's far,
far easier to set up and administer and not nearly as fragile as any
form of Jet replication.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
Well yes that assuming he's replicated it in the first place. I don't
like replication at all, all it seemed to do was cause problems.

With an un-replicated system - if you're just interested in finding out
what everyone has done (i.e. what data has gone onto the system(s))
then the above should be okay. That is how the one i mentioned works.

D

Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a

<da********@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
Well yes that assuming he's replicated it in the first place. I don't
like replication at all, all it seemed to do was cause problems.

With an un-replicated system - if you're just interested in finding out
what everyone has done (i.e. what data has gone onto the system(s))
then the above should be okay. That is how the one i mentioned works.

No, I need to update all of the data in all of the databases. I thought I
would send one file around "in a circle" for replication.

I hate replication, by the way. Its always been a pain in the neck. I
remember all the woes I had with A95 when if first came out. I lost two
major clients. This new app, however, requires replication.
Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
"Daven Thrice" <da*********@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
news:Ekryd.148$Q%4.145@fed1read06:
I have a database that needs to be replicated over the Internet. I
was hoping it would be a simple task, but apparently it is not.
I've started browsing the msdn article on the topic. In the
meantime, I am wondering who might be able to host a server on the
Internet that meets such requirements. If anybody has had any
experience with this, and/or if you can recommend a host who meets
said requirements, I'd appreciate it if you'd post.


Don't pay any attention to the Microsoft documentation on Jet
replication, as it mostly reflects the dreams of marketing rather
than actual experience with replication over the long haul. Some of
the original documentation was *very* bad, recommending techniques
that were extremely dangerous, but some of that has been corrected
over the years (though not all of it).

Internet replication requires that the synchronizer process be
running on an NT box running IIS and FTP services. So far as I know,
no commercial ISP offers this service because the support costs
would be astronomical (especially given that the synchronizer cannot
run as a service, so that the service would always have to be logged
on as a user and locked).

Secondly, since Internet replication is so dependent on proper
configuration of IIS and FTP and permissions and networking on both
ends, it breaks any time a butterfly sneezes in Tahiti (according to
reports I've read in microsoft.public.access.replication -- I've
never contemplated using it myself, because of the dependence on
IIS, which I will never force any client to install as it's so
incredibly insecure and unreliable).

You have a couple of alternatives:

1. if you can set up a VPN across a WAN, you should have not
difficulty setting up plain old indirect replication. Indirect
replication works with normal Windows networking, and the connection
would have to remain open for the synchronizer to do its job (or
you'd have to programmatically open the connection before
synchronizing). I've never done this, but I don't see why it
shouldn't work. The key point is that replication depends on a
networked connection.

2. abandon replication entirely, and host the application for remote
users on a Windows Terminal Server. This is the direction I've gone
in with all my clients who need to support remote users. It's far,
far easier to set up and administer and not nearly as fragile as any
form of Jet replication.


Thanks for your input, David. The problem is that the application has to be
used off-line (in the field) in three different countries and then
syncronized once a week.

I totally believe what you are saying above, especially in regards to the
butterfly in Tahiti.

You commented, earlier in the thread, about what a bad idea it is to sent
replicas via email. I don't have too many options her other than going with
an SQL-type system, and my-o-my, that really seams to complicate things big
time. (I was looking at MySQL replication, fwiw.)

Maybe it is possible for me to just append the data together from the
different labs. That's going to be difficult to keep straight too. Ugh!

I'll think about doing this WAN thing, as you suggest. My problem with that
is that I *really* don't want to have to setup this WAN myself. I know how
to do it, but it really ain't my bag :-(

Thanks,

mt
Nov 13 '05 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.