Showing posts with label peer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peer. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Peer to Peer Replication Problem with BLOBs

I've set up a development peer to peer replication between 2 SQL Server 2005 on 2 Windows XP SP2 systems.

The distribution agent is configured to use UseOledbStreaming. When saving smaller BLOBs of approx 10000 KB all works fine. When I try to replicate larger data I get the following error message in the Synchronisation status window and in the history of the distributor to the subscriber tab in the replication monitor:

Der Verteilungs-Agent verwendet die OLE DB-Streamingoptimierung für die Replikation von BLOB-Daten (Binary Large Objects) mit mehr als 16384 Bytes. Der Schwellenwert für die Optimierung kann über die Befehlszeile mithilfe des -OledbStreamThreshold-Parameters festgelegt werden.
(Quelle: MSSQL_REPL, Fehlernummer: MSSQL_REPL21060)
Hilfe abrufen: http://help/MSSQL_REPL21060

I also tried different values of OledbStreamThreshold.

I need to be able to replicate BLOBs in size of up to 1 GB.

I'm writing the BLOB data in chunks to the table DB_BLOBData , that isn't an article for replication and at the end copy it to the destination table MyBLOBTable which is an article. I do this, because I noticed that the transaction log on the subscriber database becomes incredibly huge (>60 GB for maybe 50 1000KB BLOBs written in blocks size of 65536 bytes) when directly updating the row using BLOB.Write(...). I think, that for each write at least the whole BLOB contents is written to the transaction log.

The replication uses Stored procedures, Update using SCALL syntax.

The code of the SP:

...
IF @.action = 1
BEGIN
UPDATE MyBLOBTable
SET DocContent = (SELECT BLOB from DB_BLOBData where GuidId = @.id)
, DocSize = (SELECT DATALENGTH(BLOB) from DB_BLOBData where GuidId = @.id)
WHERE DocId = @.id
DELETE FROM DB_BLOBData WHERE GuidId = @.id
END

IF @.action = 0
BEGIN
IF @.Offset = 0
BEGIN
INSERT DB_BLOBData( GuidId, BLOB )
VALUES ( @.id, @.value )
END
ELSE
BEGIN
UPDATE DB_BLOBData
SET BLOB.Write( @.value , @.Offset , @.Length )
WHERE GuidId = @.id
END
END

SELECT @.ModDttm = modDttm
, @.ModUser = modUser
, @.ModClient = modClient
, @.ModAppl = modAppl
FROM MyBLOBTable
WHERE DocId = @.id

RETURN 0
END

TIA,

Hannoman

Hi Hannoman,

While my ancestors are from Germany, my German is severly lacking, thus my inability to decipher the error message , but you might look at the following in BOL:

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/11061c08-661a-4386-8996-9685cd81de05.htm

Particuarly, the section that talks about LOB's. I don't know if that answers your question, but if it doesn't hopefully it will point you in the right direction.

Scott

|||

Hello Scott

I'm using transactional peer to peer replication.

The error message means something like

The distribution agent uses OLE DB-Streaming optimization for replicating BLOB data with size larger than 16384 bytes. The threshold for the optimizationcan be defined on the command line using the OledbStreamThreshold parameter.

(Source: MSSQL_REPL, Error number: MSSQL_REPL21060)
get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL21060

The problem is, that this kind of error deadlocks the replication. As I don't know how to handle this, I have to delete the publications and subscriptions and set them up again. In an production environment this wouldn't be a solution.

Hannoman

|||Unfortunately this is a known bug for Peer to Peer in SQL 2005, as a workaround you can try setting -CommitBatchSize to 1.

Peer to Peer Replication Problem with BLOBs

I've set up a development peer to peer replication between 2 SQL Server 2005 on 2 Windows XP SP2 systems.

The distribution agent is configured to use UseOledbStreaming. When saving smaller BLOBs of approx 10000 KB all works fine. When I try to replicate larger data I get the following error message in the Synchronisation status window and in the history of the distributor to the subscriber tab in the replication monitor:

Der Verteilungs-Agent verwendet die OLE DB-Streamingoptimierung für die Replikation von BLOB-Daten (Binary Large Objects) mit mehr als 16384 Bytes. Der Schwellenwert für die Optimierung kann über die Befehlszeile mithilfe des -OledbStreamThreshold-Parameters festgelegt werden.
(Quelle: MSSQL_REPL, Fehlernummer: MSSQL_REPL21060)
Hilfe abrufen: http://help/MSSQL_REPL21060

I also tried different values of OledbStreamThreshold.

I need to be able to replicate BLOBs in size of up to 1 GB.

I'm writing the BLOB data in chunks to the table DB_BLOBData , that isn't an article for replication and at the end copy it to the destination table MyBLOBTable which is an article. I do this, because I noticed that the transaction log on the subscriber database becomes incredibly huge (>60 GB for maybe 50 1000KB BLOBs written in blocks size of 65536 bytes) when directly updating the row using BLOB.Write(...). I think, that for each write at least the whole BLOB contents is written to the transaction log.

The replication uses Stored procedures, Update using SCALL syntax.

The code of the SP:

...
IF @.action = 1
BEGIN
UPDATE MyBLOBTable
SET DocContent = (SELECT BLOB from DB_BLOBData where GuidId = @.id)
, DocSize = (SELECT DATALENGTH(BLOB) from DB_BLOBData where GuidId = @.id)
WHERE DocId = @.id
DELETE FROM DB_BLOBData WHERE GuidId = @.id
END

IF @.action = 0
BEGIN
IF @.Offset = 0
BEGIN
INSERT DB_BLOBData( GuidId, BLOB )
VALUES ( @.id, @.value )
END
ELSE
BEGIN
UPDATE DB_BLOBData
SET BLOB.Write( @.value , @.Offset , @.Length )
WHERE GuidId = @.id
END
END

SELECT @.ModDttm = modDttm
, @.ModUser = modUser
, @.ModClient = modClient
, @.ModAppl = modAppl
FROM MyBLOBTable
WHERE DocId = @.id

RETURN 0
END

TIA,

Hannoman

Hi Hannoman,

While my ancestors are from Germany, my German is severly lacking, thus my inability to decipher the error message , but you might look at the following in BOL:

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/11061c08-661a-4386-8996-9685cd81de05.htm

Particuarly, the section that talks about LOB's. I don't know if that answers your question, but if it doesn't hopefully it will point you in the right direction.

Scott

|||

Hello Scott

I'm using transactional peer to peer replication.

The error message means something like

The distribution agent uses OLE DB-Streaming optimization for replicating BLOB data with size larger than 16384 bytes. The threshold for the optimizationcan be defined on the command line using the OledbStreamThreshold parameter.

(Source: MSSQL_REPL, Error number: MSSQL_REPL21060)
get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL21060

The problem is, that this kind of error deadlocks the replication. As I don't know how to handle this, I have to delete the publications and subscriptions and set them up again. In an production environment this wouldn't be a solution.

Hannoman

|||Unfortunately this is a known bug for Peer to Peer in SQL 2005, as a workaround you can try setting -CommitBatchSize to 1.

Peer to peer replication on SQL 2000?

Hello,
reading about peer-to-peer transactional replication in SQL 2005
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/ms152536.aspx), I would like to do the same
thing with 3 SQL 2000 servers. Of course peer-to-peer replication is not
available, but can anybody suggest a way to simulate this kind of
replication with SQL 2000?
thanks,
al.
AL,
the nearest thing is probably bi-directional transactional replication:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;820675
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Bi directional transactional replication only works between 2 nodes. The
closest you can get is merge, but this would require your publisher to be
always accessible. If it goes down, the other two nodes are out of luck.
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
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:%23AE7C%23REGHA.3984@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> AL,
> the nearest thing is probably bi-directional transactional replication:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;820675
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Maybe I'm missing something it but according to the MS document, you can use
a central subscriber topology to use BiDirectional Transactional replication
to cater for more than two nodes?
Cheers,
Paul
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23P67ZKSEGHA.828@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Bi directional transactional replication only works between 2 nodes. The
> closest you can get is merge, but this would require your publisher to be
> always accessible. If it goes down, the other two nodes are out of luck.
> --
> 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
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:%23AE7C%23REGHA.3984@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Paul Ibison wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something it but according to the MS document, you can use
> a central subscriber topology to use BiDirectional Transactional replication
> to cater for more than two nodes?
> Cheers,
> Paul
That's what I'm trying to do. Manually, as stated in that article. Still
working on it ;)
|||Well what do you know!
Last time I tried this I could not get it to work. Changes originating on
Server B would go to Server A and C but not back to B. Then them C would
loop back to A and go to B, and collision. Let me try to repro this again.
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
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:OlJqkTSEGHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Maybe I'm missing something it but according to the MS document, you can
> use a central subscriber topology to use BiDirectional Transactional
> replication to cater for more than two nodes?
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23P67ZKSEGHA.828@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hilary,
I just managed to let this work, but it's a mess of things to do
manually (including generating - and then modifying!! - stored
procedures that will handle inserts/updates/deletes on other servers).
If you follow the instructions, and start with a simple table, you get
it working. The problem is then using this for a large db...
I'm still evaluating if it's worth the effort, but this is the only
solution I found (thanks Paul) to simulate what under SQL 2005 is called
"peer-to-peer transactional replication".
If you or anybody else is using this kind of replication, I'd like to
hear your opinions.
bye,
al.

> Well what do you know!
> Last time I tried this I could not get it to work. Changes originating on
> Server B would go to Server A and C but not back to B. Then them C would
> loop back to A and go to B, and collision. Let me try to repro this again.
>
|||It absolutely can not be done. You wind up with endlessly looping
transactions.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"AL" <albeNOSPAM@.ihnetNOSPAM.it> wrote in message
news:uAJszyREGHA.376@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> reading about peer-to-peer transactional replication in SQL 2005
> (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/ms152536.aspx), I would like to do the same
> thing with 3 SQL 2000 servers. Of course peer-to-peer replication is not
> available, but can anybody suggest a way to simulate this kind of
> replication with SQL 2000?
> thanks,
> al.
|||Mike,
I like your explanation of avoiding closing the loop, but as there is only a
requirement for 3 servers (and the poster wants the nearest method in SQL
2000 to simulate peer-to-peer), why won't
ServerA <--> ServerB <--> ServerC
work? (you mention this in another reply ).
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Al,
it would help us to know if it is a requirement for all the nodes to
communicate with eachother (rather than having a simple chain). As you can
see from the thread, this is the crux of whether or not bidirectional TR is
applicable or not.
Rgds,
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
sql

Peer to Peer replication and cascading deletes

I was hoping someone could explain how cascading deletes work in Peer to Peer replication on SQL 2005 SP2, the child tables are also being replicated.

Did some of my own testing and here's the results:

Peer to Peer Replication Testing FK Cascading deletes Test 1 1 Create 2 tables with a foreign key dependency, both tables are being replicated. 2 Create FK relationship with the various option below. FK Options Behaviour SQL1 SQL2 Note FOR REPPLICATION Rows are removed as expected All rows are delete as with SQL1, not errors are generated. NOT FOR REPLICATION Rows are removed as expected All rows are delete as with SQL1, not errors are generated. Test 2 1 Create 2 tables with a foreign key dependency, only 1 table is replicated replicated. 2 Create FK relationship with the various option below. FK Options Behaviour SQL1 SQL2 Note FOR REPPLICATION Rows are removed as expected All rows are delete as with SQL1, not errors are generated. NOT FOR REPLICATION Rows are removed as expected The cascading delete failed, only the primary record was removed. This does not break replication as the table that retained the row is not replicated.

peer to peer replication

Hi,

I set up a peer to peer replication on servers, but only one side seem to be working. I am getting Log Reader Agent job error.

Unable to start execution of step 2 (reason: Error authenticating proxy domain\user, system error: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password.). The step failed.

I am using the same windows account on both servers, why is one side working and the other side not?

thanks

doublecheck the account and password that starts the job, sqlserver and sqlagent service, and doublecheck their permissions on the machine.

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
>

Peer to Peer difficulty when adding a column

I'm trying to add a column to my peer to peer replication. According to the
help I've found:
Adding Columns
a.. To add a new column to a table and include that column in an existing
publication, execute ALTER TABLE <Table> ADD <Column>. By default, the
column is then replicated to all Subscribers. The column must allow NULL
values or include a default constraint.
b.. To add a new column to a table and not include that column in an
existing publication, disable the replication of schema changes, and then
execute ALTER TABLE <Table> ADD <Column>.
c.. To include an existing column in an existing publication, use
sp_articlecolumn (Transact-SQL), sp_mergearticlecolumn (Transact-SQL), or
the Publication Properties - <Publication> dialog box.
For more information, see How to: Define and Modify a Column Filter
(Replication Transact-SQL Programming) and How to: Define and Modify a
Column Filter (SQL Server Management Studio). This will require
subscriptions to be reinitialized.
d.. Adding an identity column to a published table is not supported,
because it can result in non-convergence when the column is replicated to
the Subscriber. The values in the identity column at the Publisher depend on
the order in which the rows for the affected table are physically stored.
The rows might be stored differently at the Subscriber; therefore the value
for the identity column can be different for the same rows.
However, while I am able to add the column to the publisher and it is
replicated to the subscriber, I cannot update this column at the subscriber
and have it replicate to the publisher. However when I update at the
publisher it IS pushed to the subscriber.
Outside of the new column, my updates bi-directionally work. Can someone
tell me how I can get updates on newly added columns to be bi-directional?
Thanks,
Adam P. Cassidy
Did you quiesce the system as outlined in this link?
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms147385.aspx
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"Adam Patrick Cassidy" <apcassidy@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:eoBB5en4GHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to add a column to my peer to peer replication. According to
> the help I've found:
> Adding Columns
> a.. To add a new column to a table and include that column in an existing
> publication, execute ALTER TABLE <Table> ADD <Column>. By default, the
> column is then replicated to all Subscribers. The column must allow NULL
> values or include a default constraint.
> b.. To add a new column to a table and not include that column in an
> existing publication, disable the replication of schema changes, and then
> execute ALTER TABLE <Table> ADD <Column>.
> c.. To include an existing column in an existing publication, use
> sp_articlecolumn (Transact-SQL), sp_mergearticlecolumn (Transact-SQL), or
> the Publication Properties - <Publication> dialog box.
> For more information, see How to: Define and Modify a Column Filter
> (Replication Transact-SQL Programming) and How to: Define and Modify a
> Column Filter (SQL Server Management Studio). This will require
> subscriptions to be reinitialized.
> d.. Adding an identity column to a published table is not supported,
> because it can result in non-convergence when the column is replicated to
> the Subscriber. The values in the identity column at the Publisher depend
> on the order in which the rows for the affected table are physically
> stored. The rows might be stored differently at the Subscriber; therefore
> the value for the identity column can be different for the same rows.
> However, while I am able to add the column to the publisher and it is
> replicated to the subscriber, I cannot update this column at the
> subscriber and have it replicate to the publisher. However when I update
> at the publisher it IS pushed to the subscriber.
> Outside of the new column, my updates bi-directionally work. Can someone
> tell me how I can get updates on newly added columns to be bi-directional?
> Thanks,
> Adam P. Cassidy
>
|||Yes. That is the same article I used as a reference originally.
Adam P. Cassidy
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%234SYrOq4GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Did you quiesce the system as outlined in this link?
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms147385.aspx
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> 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
>
> "Adam Patrick Cassidy" <apcassidy@.aol.com> wrote in message
> news:eoBB5en4GHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>

Peer to Peer 64bit and 32bit question

If I have an existing 64bit P2P transactional replication setup, can I join
a 32bit machine without any expected problems or does it also have to be a
64bit machine?
Any direction to resources would be great as well.
Adam P. Cassidy
Adam,
For SQL Server 2000, the issues were summarised as follows:
As the Microsoft Jet engine is not supported, Microsoft Jet push
subscriptions for merge replication are not supported.
Unless the subscriber provides a 64-bit ODBC or OLE DB driver, transactional
or snapshot push subscriptions for ODBC or OLE DB subscribers are not
supported.
Because of the unavailability of 64-bit Data Transformation Services (DTS),
transformable push subscriptions are not supported.
In Peer-to-peer between 64bit and 32bit I am therefore aware of no issues.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||This is a tested configuration
"Adam Patrick Cassidy" <apcassidy@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:O%23gjeUCCHHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If I have an existing 64bit P2P transactional replication setup, can I
> join
> a 32bit machine without any expected problems or does it also have to be a
> 64bit machine?
> Any direction to resources would be great as well.
> Adam P. Cassidy
>
sql