2008->2000 Transactional: Bug?

[Joseph]

2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
2000SP3 Subscriber

When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.

When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
in the database (#2714).

Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.

Thanks,

Joseph

[Ben Thul]

Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
--
Ben

[Dan]

I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
supporting 7).

Dan

"Ben Thul" <thu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e3f5d6-a122-4259...@k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

[Ben Thul]

I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm saying that it's not
supported. So, if something breaks and you call MS to open a support
case, you'll either pay dearly for it or they'll say that you're out
of luck.

On May 18, 4:30 am, "Dan" <n...@worldofspack.com> wrote:
> I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
> transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
> ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
> replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
> wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
> supporting 7).
>
> Dan
>

> "Ben Thul" <thul...@gmail.com> wrote in message

[Dan]

According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143241.aspx
replication between 2000, 2005, and 2008 is supported. There's even the
example note of a Distributor running 2008, Publisher on 2005, and
Subscriber on 2000. Using mixed versions just means that only the lowest
common features are available, but it's certainly a supported configuration.
It also points out for transactional replication that a subscriber needs to
be within 2 versions of the publisher - so 2000 subscribing from a 2008
publisher is fully supported.

Dan

"Ben Thul" <thu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:02e1f685-45ac-407e...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...

[Joseph]

That's what I thought, but my painful experience these last couple of
weeks is that their seems to be alot of exceptions, or that the
supported configuration is very narrowly defined.

I would expect to be able to use the front end to subscribe to my 2008
pub without the error mentioned above...?

I'm moving back to Merge, me thinks.

Thanks,

Joseph

On May 18, 7:31 am, "Dan" <n...@worldofspack.com> wrote:
> According tohttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143241.aspx

> replication between 2000, 2005, and 2008 is supported. There's even the
> example note of a Distributor running 2008, Publisher on 2005, and
> Subscriber on 2000. Using mixed versions just means that only the lowest
> common features are available, but it's certainly a supported configuration.
> It also points out for transactional replication that a subscriber needs to
> be within 2 versions of the publisher - so 2000 subscribing from a 2008
> publisher is fully supported.
>
> Dan
>

[Dan]

It should work according to that article I posted, but you may have to
contact PSS to see if there is a known issue with this configuration, or to
report it as a bug.

Dan

"Joseph" <josephs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dd99bc5-263d-4756...@y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...