|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The Customer Specified and Suggested this configuration. I do not have to do it that way as long as is completely free and NoLicenses are requires. The end user must have the ability to retrieve data from the LocalDatabase at any time. The Database must be updated locally after each use or run and must all be available globally to the other 11 local machines (tester) or a master or supervisor machine (Tester) MASTER1 which is updated with all the other 11 localMachines (Testers) as well as its own local data. All records must be updated after each Machine (Tester) Cycle or the Next time that the machine (tester) is turned on it needs to update accordingly. Backups will be done locally on each machine at some specified frequency defined by the customer. Each machine has its own Unique Results and 1 Master or allMust have the others information avalaible to them to Query. I have the Database Created in MS Access for the first machine Tester) but the Customer will not accept it because it Requires Office or Licensing to be installed on 12 PC Platforms. SQL Server Express 208 willnot allow you to import a Database from MS Access and Save it as a SQLServer Express 2008 Database. Hope you can help.
Regards
BC
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone know of potential problems with using a SQL Server 2000 db with a .NET 2.0/3.5 site?
|
|
|
|
|
The two have nothing to do with each other, so, no...
|
|
|
|
|
want to know how can I schedule a task in SQL Express 2005 to backup the database on daily basis to a folder in a network drive like this:
\\192.9.100.2\backup.sql\backup.bak
I want an incremental backup to be performed daily but full backup to be performed monthly.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't repost. If you you want to change your post, simply hit Edit link on the bottom right corner of the post.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to know how can I schedule a task in SQL Express 2005 to backup the database on daily basis to a folder in a network drive like this:
\\192.9.100.2\backup.sql\backup.bak
I want an incremental backup to be performed daily but full backup to be performed monthly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about creating a stored procedure then use windows schedule task to execute the procedure?
|
|
|
|
|
That would work also. Just create the procedure and schedule a batch job which will use sqlcmd and execute the procedure. There's a bit more work since you need to take care of logging, alarming etc. but it's not complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I store a lot of data in a table. An ordered subset of these data are to be displayed on a remote application. In order to minimize the network load and display latency I'd like to retrieve only the row that are really displayed. The remote application will request additional rows when the user scroll.
First I though I could use views and cursor to achieve this. It works well except when I need to display data add after the view creation. In this case I have to recreate the view which is quite long.
I'm connected through ODBC to SQL Server or MySQL. Is there an ODBC way to retrieve result set rows on demand (I don't want all the rows to be retrieved by the ODBC driver) ? So maybe I could use a simple SELECT request and get only the rows I need (assuming the SELECT will be fast enough).
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
You could look at SQLFetchScroll[^].
The downside is that the cursor must be open all the time, which can lead to several problems. If you want to close the cursor between calls then you have ty dynamically modify the sql statement so that you define new "offset" every time.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the possible problems caused by keeping the cursor open all the time ?
By "offset" do you mean I need to memorize the last position and use it again the next call as a "bookmark" for the SQLFetchScroll method ?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
