Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Problem with IB7.0 Replication

5 views
Skip to first unread message

MC

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 11:27:50 AM11/29/04
to
Hi everyone,

I have a problem with Replication Manager that's bundled with IB7.01 and
would appreciate any advise from anyone here.

Scenario:

I've 2 databases (one SOURCE and one TARGET).
IB Replication has been setup and at every 180 mins (3 hours) interval, the
new and updated records will get replicated from the SOURCE to TARGET DB.
Any changes made in the SOURCE DB will be stored in the REPL_LOG table and
once the replication is completed, the REPL_LOG Table will be empty.

Problem:

Recently, I noticed that when I do a "select count(*) from REPL_LOG",
there's a value of 63315. Meaning that there are 63k+ records in the SOURCE
DB that's not replicated to the TARGET DB.

I used the 'Manual Conflict Resolution' tool, that's part of the Replication
Manager, and found that there're 2 types of an error for all these records;
Error:
1) "Can't Insert: Row exists with NEWER TimeStamp - MANUAL RESOLUTION
REQUIRED"
2) "Can't Update: Row exists with NEWER TimeStamp - MANUAL RESOLUTION
REQUIRED"

This issue has caused the data on both DB to be different.

Question:

Is there anyway that I can use to force the 63k+ records to be replicated
over to the TARGET DB??

Please advise.

Thank you and Regards,
MC


Brian Ellul

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 1:47:38 AM11/30/04
to
What version of replication server are you using?

I'm not sure but the version which ships with IB7.01 is old. The latest can
be downloaded from the IBPhoenix site
http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=ibphoenix&s=1101791905:380590&page=ibp_replicator

Brian

"MC" <mwo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41ab...@newsgroups.borland.com...

Steve Ball

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 3:19:01 PM12/15/04
to
Is this a one way replication? Ie are you only moving data from the source
to the tartget. Is everything happening at the source and the target is in
essence a backup copy? I'd suggest looking at changing the scheme so that it
is not a TimeStamp resolution and change it to master > slave if this is the
case. That should get round the time stamp issue.


"MC" <mwo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41ab...@newsgroups.borland.com...

0 new messages