Peer-to-Peer Replication (Programmatic Control and Setup)

I have reviewed the BOL documentation on how to configure Peer-to-Peer replication via T-SQL and how to use the Replication Wizard to implement replication.

What I would like to find out is how do I configure the peer-to-peer replication process to use an existing column on a table that contains a GUID instead of creating an extra column with a uniqueidentifier GUID value. When you use the Wizard each table article has this extra column added to it.

I don't seem to be able to find it in the books-on-line. Can some one point me to the correct article or BOL page.

Thank you.

...cordell...

I do not think that P2P replication adds a uniqueidentifier column to a published table. Transactional queued replicaiton and merge replication will add required columns to a table that you want to publish. Please confirm which type of replication you are trying to use.

A general suggestion is to use the UI to implement the replication scenario that you want, then use the scripting featues in the UI to see the syntax for the new column that was added.

i.e. Merge replication will add the following column to a table that is merge published...

[rowguid] [uniqueidentifier] ROWGUIDCOL NOT NULL CONSTRAINT

Check out this link for more details on how merge replcation adds a rowguid uniqueidentifier column if one does not exist -- http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa256294(SQL.80).aspx

Hope this helps,

Tom

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Peer to Peer question.

BOL link:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/23e7e8c1-002f-4e69-8c99-d63e4100de64.htm
Howdy all. I was just reading up on this topic and have a question. It says
on this page (Topology with two participating databases) that reads will be
spread out between the two servers, thereby giving better performance. But it
doesnt say how that is accomplished. Does the app have to be designed a
specific way, like it would be if updates were going to go between the two
boxes in the same scenario?
TIA, ChrisR
Hi Chris - I would guess that they are talking about a load-balancing
middle-tier solution, but I can't see the exact link here. Can you post up
the topic header and I'll check out the page on the web.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
|||It's scale out read and write performance. Instead of having 100 users
banging away against one box you have two boxes and 50 of the 100 users
banging away against box 1 and the other 50 banging away against box 2. You
get improved performance because of reduced io contention, lock contention,
and improved concurrency.
Hilary Cotter
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
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8EB2FFF2-B2A5-4F1A-A0AB-58552D3C212D@.microsoft.com...
> BOL link:
> ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/23e7e8c1-002f-4e69-8c99-d63e4100de64.htm
> Howdy all. I was just reading up on this topic and have a question. It
> says
> on this page (Topology with two participating databases) that reads will
> be
> spread out between the two servers, thereby giving better performance. But
> it
> doesnt say how that is accomplished. Does the app have to be designed a
> specific way, like it would be if updates were going to go between the two
> boxes in the same scenario?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
|||I understand why you would want it to be spread out, but I don't understand
how it gets spread put. Does the app need to be written a certain way?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> It's scale out read and write performance. Instead of having 100 users
> banging away against one box you have two boxes and 50 of the 100 users
> banging away against box 1 and the other 50 banging away against box 2. You
> get improved performance because of reduced io contention, lock contention,
> and improved concurrency.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> 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
>
> "ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8EB2FFF2-B2A5-4F1A-A0AB-58552D3C212D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||replication [SQL Server], peer-to-peer replication/ Peer to Peer
Transactional Replication.
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Hi Chris - I would guess that they are talking about a load-balancing
> middle-tier solution, but I can't see the exact link here. Can you post up
> the topic header and I'll check out the page on the web.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
>
>
|||DML which occurs on one server is sent to each node in the peer-to-peer
topology. Each command has an originating server tag on it so it does not
loop back.
The recommendations for writing a client app which uses the peer-to-peer
topology is that all updates are directed at one server to prevent
conflicts, the tables are perfectly partitioned to prevent conflicts and all
systems are quiesced when you make schema changes.
Hilary Cotter
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
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:37CA311D-26D6-42A9-88B7-A1396C8CB730@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I understand why you would want it to be spread out, but I don't understand
> how it gets spread put. Does the app need to be written a certain way?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
|||Thanks guys.
"ChrisR" wrote:

> BOL link:
> ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/23e7e8c1-002f-4e69-8c99-d63e4100de64.htm
> Howdy all. I was just reading up on this topic and have a question. It says
> on this page (Topology with two participating databases) that reads will be
> spread out between the two servers, thereby giving better performance. But it
> doesnt say how that is accomplished. Does the app have to be designed a
> specific way, like it would be if updates were going to go between the two
> boxes in the same scenario?
> TIA, ChrisR
>