We've had a two node peer-to-peer (P2P) replication setup running for almost a year but for some reason it was recently marked as inactive forcing us to re-build it. Unfortunately no matter how I try to re-build it I keep getting the same error.
Basically once P2P is configured it would instantly fail because it couldn’t find some auto-created “sp_MS[upd|ins|del]*******” stored procedures. While doing some investigation (and selecting directly from sys.procedures) I found that these stored procedures are only created when the DB becomes a subscriber as a P2P node, similar to transactional replication. As every DB in P2P is a publisher and a subscriber the fact that these were missing is strange especially considering it clearly succeeds in doing this on one of the DBs but not the other. It would appear that one of the DBs does not get set up as a subscriber but I receive no error or indication of this (in fact Management Studio does show two subscriptions). I tried pretty much everything I could think of, changing which DB is configured first, completely disabling distribution and re-creating it, etc. but still no luck.
Has anyone else run into this or could does anyone have any suggestions as to what I should look at trying next?
Thanks in advance!
The issue is that the database that the P2P backup was taken from was modified before it was restored on the new node. This happened even when the option specifying that a change has happened was used and is likely a bug. The "solution" is to ensure that the original DB has not been modified at all before replication gets back up and running.
Related
Dears,
I have scenarios where I have to perform updates on the intrinsic database of LightSwitch and call some SQL stored procedures in the save pipeline all in ONE TRANSACTION, such that if an error happened in the LS save pipeline then my stored procedure calls are rolled back.
The recommended way of doing this is to set up an ambient transaction in the SaveChanges_Executing event, and to dispose of it in the SaveChanges_Executed and SaveChanges_ExecuteFailed events. As described in this articles http://www.codemag.com/Article/1103071
But this has two fatal problems:
It does not work when I publish the app on Azure since distributed transactions are not supported there.
Also it throws an error when I try to save changes to ApplicationData sources using the ServerApplicationContext. The error is this: The underlying provider failed on EnlistTransaction
Has anyone found a cleaner way to handle transactions in LightSwitch that works both on Azure and through ServerApplicationContext??
Thanks a lot
Currently, distributed transactions using MSDTC do not work against SQL Azure. They will work just fine against SQL Server in a VM running in Azure, however. MSDTC is tied to running on a domain controller, generally, and that doesn't make sense in the public cloud context. An alternative DTC is likely needed, but this is not something that has been publicly announced as of today.
I don't think Lightswitch is the main issue here (though perhaps it has some additional issue beyond what I have described).
I hope that at least explains why it doesn't work today - I wish I had a better answer for you, but right now it is not possible. The "workarounds" being used are to build applications that can be resilient to the commits happening on each side (or not) and recovering from the failed cases.
I have two databases in different servers - center_db on siglv01\sql2008 and center_db on sig\sql2008.
Can I restart replication without needing to reinitialize it? The connection dropped more than 3 days ago and is now too slow: so I want to start replication without a reinitialize.
Based on the brief conversation above, I don't think you can do this without a re-init. Specifically, the distribution database only keeps so many commands before it starts trimming. The default is 72 hours. If the last command delivered to all of your subscribers is older than that, the distribution database doesn't have what it needs to play forward all of the activity that has happened since then.
Your only hope would be if the distribution agent is still running (it knows when the above situation happens and will give you an error saying as much). If so, try to figure out why delivery is slow (troubleshoot this like any other "slow application"; replication isn't magic) and see if it can get caught up that way. Depending on how many commands are remain undelivered, it may be faster to just re-init.
I am looking for a (SQL/RDB) database setup that works something like this:
I will have 3+ databases in an active/active/active configuration
prior to doing any insert, the database will communicate with atleast a majority of the others, such that they all either insert at the same time or rollback (transaction)
this way I can write and read from any of the databases, and always get the same results (as long as the field wasn't updated very recently)
note: this is for a use case that will be very read-heavy and have few writes (and delay on the writes is an OK situation)
does anything like this exist? I see all sorts of solutions with database HA configurations, but most of them suggest writing to a primary node or having a passive backup
alternatively I could setup a custom application, and have each application talk to exactly 1 database, and achieve a similar result, but I was hoping something similar would already exist
So my questions is: does something like this exist? if not, are there any technical/architectural reasons why not?
P.S. - I will NOT be using a SAN where all databases can store/access the same data
edit: more clarifications as far as what I am looking for:
1. I have no database picked out yet, but I am more familiar with MySQL / SQL Server / Oracle, so I would have a minor inclination towards on of those
2. If a majority of the nodes are down (or a single node can't communicate with the collective), then I expect all writes from that node to fail, and accept that it may provide old/outdated information
failure / recover scenario expectations:
1. A node goes down: it will query and get updates from the other nodes when it comes back up
2. A node loses connection with the collective: it will provide potentially old data to read request, and refuse any writes
3. A node is in disagreement with the data stores in others: majority rule
4. 4. majority rule does not work: go with whomever has the latest data (although this really shouldn't happen)
5. The entries are insert/update/read only, i.e. there will be no deletes (except manually ofc), so I shouldn't need to worry about an update after a delete, however in that case I would choose to delete the record and ignore the update
6. Any other scenarios I missed?
update: I the closest I see to what I am looking for seems to be using a quorum + 2 DBs, however I would prefer if I could have 3 DBs instead, such that I can query any of them at any time (to further distribute the reads, and also to keep another copy of the data)
You need to define "very recently". In most environments with replication for inserts, all the databases will have the same data within a few seconds of an insert (and a few seconds seems pessimistic).
An alternative approach is a "read-from-one/write-to-all" approach. In this case, reads are spread through the system. Writes are then sent to all nodes by the application (or a common layer that the application uses).
Remember, though, that the issue with database replication is not how it works when it works. The issue is how it recovers when it fails and even how failures are identified. You need to decide what happens when nodes go down, how they recover lost transactions, how you decide that nodes are really synchronized. I would suggest that you peruse the documentation of the database that you are actually using and understand the replication mechanisms provided by that platform.
I'm synchronizing SQL Server 2008 with ~6 SQL Server 2008 Express clients (everything R2 I believe), using the SyncOrchestrator or specifically using http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/Database-SyncSQL-Server-e97d1208 as a base with slight modifications. To my knowledge this means all connections are peers or nodes.
I have 2 scopes. One is download only and the other is upload only. The download only scope is ridden with identity columns primarily because I didn't know any better and still couldn't wrap my head around introducing Guids as the PK on the client side. It doesn't totally matter as all clients should have exact replicas of about 8 or so tables and these machines don't touch this data in any way, only read it.
The upload only scope uses Guids as fortunately I can control that portion of the database and there would be no way 10 clients all using the same identity seed could sync back to the server properly. Both scopes use the default provisioning with bulk inserts and the whole 9 yards so there shouldn't be anything I'm doing on the provisioning end to screw this up.
I initially set everything up not using PerformPostRestoreFixup AND the initial database would be manually synchronized with insert statements from the host. This seemed fine but no updates or deletes seemed to ever be applied. You can safely ignore this (only used for historical accuracy and to prove my ineptness) as I then used VS2010 Database Projects to rebuild the database down to schema only & synchronized. I then used the steps outlined here (http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/br/syncdevdiscussions/thread/9ac6d1a1-1565-4b82-a8d8-3d4a9ff5d07b) (sync, backup, restore, call performpostrestorefixup, sync on x clients) and on my dev box where I'm setting all this up I could see updates and deletes just fine. Its when I deploy this to the x clients that I'm not seeing a mirror of the database as I think I should.
The initial sync will complain and try to synchronize all records again. I believe this is expected. During ApplyChangeFailed event on the client I set everything other than DbConflictType.ErrorsOccurred to ApplyAction.RetryWithForceWrite. This may be a source of problems as I initially thought this should be done to force the change down to the client. I want the server to always win in this scenario but during trace I always see the phrase "Local wins" during the bulk insert/update calls. It's possible I'm seeing the error before the re-apply happens but it's awkward to look at.
The only problem I seem to be having is with the download only scope. The initial client database is about a week old now and if I use the performpostrestorefixup steps I don't see any of the updates that have applied between now and then as I think I should. It's as if SyncFx almost prefers a blank database on the client side to kick off the initial sync then all the updates seem to apply just fine with no ApplyChangesFailed events kicking off.
If anyone has seen this before or has a clue where to go I would greatly appreciate it. My brain has fried trying to determine what it is that's going on. My last ditch effort will be to deploy blank databases to all the clients and have them start the sync. I've had no issues with this on the dev side but I can only test one other client to know if that'll do anything different. Aside from that I don't know what to do other than to keep doing manual syncs which would defeat this purpose entirely. I thought PerformPostRestoreFixup would alleviate the issue entirely but I seem to be having the same problems with or without it or perhaps I'm not looking at what I need to be.
Thanks
I wanted to report and close the entry with my findings.
When I would deploy a previously configured client database, I'd often get ApplyChangeFailed events in the form of this log:
"[05:30:41 PM] - ApplyChange Failed: TableName: , Stage: ApplyingInserts, ConflictType: LocalInsertRemoteInsert, Action: RetryWithForceWrite"
This is what I thought would be expected as it tried to reinsert the data that is already there. What this should've been changed to was an update statement during RetryWithForceWrite but I found the data was not updating with what was being sent down.
Once I started each client with a completely blank database and provisioned locally, all of these errors went away. It's as if every client expects some unique id only it sets. I'm also using x64 builds versus x86 which may have some or no bearing on the results. I wish I could determine what exactly happened but it seems that when in doubt, and whenever possible, starting from absolute zero and letting sync fill in the data is your safest option.
We are using Replication and seem to be having endless problems with it. It seems to shut down for unknown reasons. It needs to be shut down to remove a column and only starts back up half the time. Does anyone have any advice on how to properly use replication or some alternatives to it.
Edit:
We are using Sql Server 2005, We cannot use database mirroring as we used the other database for reporting. As far as I am aware you cannot query from a mirrored database.
If you need just couple of tables from your DB for reports, replication is more useful, but you also can set up log shipping with secondary server in STAND BY mode (especially if you need significant part of your data for reports), then you can run reports on secondary server. You just have to remember that log shipping will interfere with transaction log backups, so you have to use the same folder with log backup files for both processes.
I would think the combination of database mirroring and database snapshots will solve your issues.
First, database mirroring is very easy to setup and I have never had any problems with it (using it for the past 4+ years).
Second, creating a database snapshot on your failover server will allow you to run reports. You can setup a sql agent job to drop and re-create the snapshot on whatever acceptable interval you like.
Of course this is all dependent on if you need your reports to run on real-time data or if they can be delayed somewhat.
Here are a list of the problems that I have had to resolve to get replication working:
1) The replication sometimes lies to me and tells me this, even when its working fine.
"The server 'Bob' is not a Subscriber. (.Net SqlClient Data Provider)" I have tried to re-initialise it thinking that it was broken and it never was...
2) It can take a little while to restart itself, especially if your remote DB is on the other side of the planet, which it is in my case. If you are on a slow network connection, or it is not 100% reliable, then you can have problems. Also, the jobs which restart the process can sometimes take a while to run, which also delays things further.
3) Some changes require full re-initalisation which involves sending a new snapshot out. If you don't have your permissions quite right, and you can re-initialise manually, but it doesn't happen automatically, then this can be a another reason for problems.
We have a SQL transactional replication which runs perfectly happily. You seem to say that it is when you are making schema changes to the publisher that you get problems. Each time we do a schema change we drop the publication, subscription and the subscription database. Do the change, then re-build it all. We can do this becuase we can tolerate the time it takes to re-apply the snapshot. There are ways to apply schema changes to the publication and have them propogate to the subscriber. Take a look at sp_register_custom_scripting. We have made this work once, so I can give some more information about it if you need.
As #Jason says, you can report from a mirrored database by using a snapshot. Beware that the snapshot will take up space, and cause more work for the mirror server. Although how much space will depend on how much data is changing and how big your original database is. We do use a snapshot on a mirrored database for occasional reports because our entire database is not replicated.
log shipping http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187103.aspx
What version of SQL Server are you using?
We're using replication now for a particular solution, and it seems to just work, day in, day out.
I would examine your event log's, and SQL Server logs to see if you can determine why it is shutting down, and why it doesn't start up.
Are you possibly patching the servers, or are you having network errors?
The alternatives to replication are log shipping, or database mirroring.
I personally prefer Database Mirroring, but it really depends what you're trying to do, as some of these aren't appropriate for certain situations.
We also have used SQL transactional replication. We had the same pains with updating schema, which requires dropping the publication on all servers, performing the updates, and then reinitializing replication, and hoping for the best. Sometimes it would not initialize, or a node would fall behind and we'd get little warning for it. A few times we even lost all the stored procedure execute permissions causing pretty much total failure on the websites.
We have a rather large database so reinitialization could take quite some time, meaning all updates had to be done at 2am on Sunday - not exactly when we're awake and alert and able to use all our faculties to deal with a problem that might arise.
We are ditching replication in favor of failover clustering on SQL 2008, but it can still be done all the way back to SQL 2000.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917693.aspx