|
Yeah 
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, now I know why you are on the boards so much, step outside and freeze your [insert relevant anatomical part] off.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
That could be one reason
Must admit that without emoticons it was kinda hard to say whether your post was or 
|
|
|
|
|
 said with humour and respect. I do find it a bit frustrating coming in and looking for something to answer and seeing your moniker after most of the questions and knowing the asker has already got a solution. The MVP was well deserved.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I really appreciate your comments!
Don't worry, I've had some extra time over the last few days but the situation is going to change Thinking afterwards I may have been a bit too eager to answer the posts.
By the way, I have few article ideas in mind and especially one of them requires a bit more work. Since I've never wrote an article with another person I think it would be interesting to do so and I believe that at least I would learn a lot from the process as well as the technologies used. Would you be interested in participating? If you are, I think we could have more conversation via email.
|
|
|
|
|
hello all,
My application in windows C#. i have two database in sql server 2005.
i want to insert record in both database but the major concern is that if any one failed its transaction then it should rollback both trasaction in both databases.
please guide me for this.....
Amit Agarwal
|
|
|
|
|
Amit Agarrwal wrote: want to insert record in both database but the major concern is that if any one failed its transaction then it should rollback both trasaction in both databases
This is called distributed transaction where you have a special coordinator which takes care of the transactions. The transactions themselves are ended using two-phase commit.
You could start here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191440.aspx[^]
A slightly different variation is using Linked Servers.
Amit Agarrwal wrote: i have two database in sql server 2005
Just wondering what that actually means. If you have two different SQL Server instances, then you need to distribute the transaction (one way or another), but if you have two different databases inside a single SQL Server instance, you can use normal transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
What Free Database Software supports Multiple Platform PC Databases with Network Hub Update Exchanging for Records?
I will approximately 12 HP Desktop PC's.
Duo Core 3.0 GHZ 2 GB RAM 500 GB Hard Drive.
Each PC will have its own local FREE database.
When any individual database changes, either all of the other databases must be updated slowly or one dedicated SUPERVISOR PC Database has to contain all the records and updates fro the others.
Any Suggestions for FREE or LOW COST SOLUTIONS?
Please Help.
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which will work easiest for the Configuaration I have and the Pc's I have and Windows XP Professional on each and having to update recors of all the individuals between them or to one Supervisor PC Database?
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't know an answer for that. Most of the products I've used are usually commercial. Possibly each products website provide you more information for your case.
If all the workstations are Windows-based, I would consider SQL Server Express and Sync Framework for the data trasnfer, but I admit, my opinion is a bit biased.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to make SQL Server Express 2008 and Sync Framework for the data transfer work as my first choice as well. I too have only used commercial licensed versions of Database Software over the past 20 years. But the customer is always right and they want FREE. I hope I can make this configuration work.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have the Link for the Fre version of Sync Framework?
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will have multiple PC's each with Windows XP Professional and SQL Server Express 2008. They will be Networked together using an Fast Ethernet Switch. Each individual PC will have its own database unique to its own station. When any of the Sations Run and their respective databases are updated at the end of any run. Their is no fast time constraint as long as ech of the databases are updated with the other databases changes within a minute or so. I need a way to update these records and transfer information from one to all or have one supervisor database that has all the individual local databases updated to it. Please help.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I use Replication and Try to add the Other Local Servers it does not let me Connect tothem or Add them as Publishers since the Databases are not on the LocalPC. Also the Other Servers do not show upas SQLEXPRESS when I browse the Netwoork. Only the Local Version shows up as a SQLEXPESS Server while the Rest only show the Machine PC Name without the backslash and no SQLEXPRESS extension. Any ideas why I can not addthem as Publishers?
|
|
|
|
|
BobClarkSQL wrote: Any ideas why I can not addthem as Publishers?
Express edition can only be a subscriber (have a look at this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645993.aspx[^]). However, you can use merge replication from your master database (if it's at least Standard edition) and have the Express editions as subscribers. After setting up the merge replication, modifications go both ways.
BobClarkSQL wrote: Only the Local Version shows up as a SQLEXPESS Server while the Rest only show the Machine PC Name without the backslash and no SQLEXPRESS extension
I would guess that your local sql server is named instance while the others are default instances. Whether they are named or default instances, it shouldn't matter. Only the connection string is a bit different. When connectiong to a default instance, you don't provide the name after a backslash.
|
|
|
|
|
None of the Platforms will have the Full version of SQL. The Customer does not want to pay for any full versions or Licenses of any kind. The customer wants it all to be in a Totally Free Database Environment on all the Platforms and that is why they suggested SQL Server Express 2008. I do not have to use that but if there is a way with any package I can do what they want without buying software that is what they want. Any Totally Free Solution to put 12 Databases on individual Platforms together using Windows XP Professional and a Network Hub or Switch that the Records of One Platform get Updated Automatically to ALL the other Platforms or One Supervisor Platform contaims all the Updated Records from the others would be great using all FREEWARE.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why cant you just use one database server?
|
|
|
|
|
The Customer wants each Machine (Tester) to have its own Database (Unique and Resident) as well as having either all the other Platforms contain each others Data recors and Updates or one designated Supervisor Server with all the other Servers updating their individual changes to it.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
As long as all the information from the Local Server or PC is available to the Local User (Operator) and the Supervisor Dedicated PC Database contains all the Locals Information and Changes and Updates it really doesn't matter. As long as it is completely FREE and no Licenses are required I am FREE to do any Suggested Configuration. As long as each Machine (Tester) can get it Own Database Information from It's PC and Anyone on the Supervisor PC or on the Same Network can get it as well or Log into the Supervisor and retrieve it for FREE its all good.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
It is always a difficult situation when a user places technical demands on a solution. I don't see why each machine would need it's own instance of SQL. The whole idea behind SQL Server is that there is 1 machine that is responsible for housing the data and making it available to many people. Have you considered how you are going to back all of these databases up? How are you going to ensure that the backups are consistent among all of the computers? How are you going to handle the situation where one or more computers are not on when an update is made ? Are you going to queue up the changes made and when these computers come online, process the pending transactions ? Ugh. This is way too complicated for what seems to be a small office configuration.
This proposed implementation has "problem" written all over it. Convince your client that 1 machine with a proper SQL engine is the way to go. If they don't want to spend money on SQL Server, how about mySql ? I've never used mySql, but it might be a lower cost solution.
You really need to go with a single server configuration.
whew, I'm done with my rant now  Time for me to switch to decaf.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
