none
Syncronizing master data RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello,

            I have a database with huge amount of master data. This master data should be same at the server and all clients. So I have made a copy of database which contains only the master data and then restores the backup at Server and the clients. The master database is not provisioned any sync scope. 

    In future the new master data can be created from server which needs to syncronized to all clients, so I provision the scope without any filters for all the master tables on server and also provisions the same scope on clients too. And then every client syncronizes with the server. But as the existing master data is already present at all the clients, it first tries to syncronize the data which is already present at the other side too. And the conflict occurs as 'LocalInsertRemoteInsert' for all the master records. As our database contains huge amout of master data, the initial sync takes much time i.e. more than 2 days :( .

     Is there any way to prevent the initial syncronization of the existing records?

    Note : In future the existing master data ca be modified at the server, so all the records needs to be populated to _tracking table.

    As per JuneT suggession I provisioned the scope on master database and then restored the database at server and the clients. But doing this, no sync happens. I tried to update the existing row which not syncronized even I inserted a record at server which is also not being syncroniized to cleints :( .

    Does anyone have any idea about how to have the sync framework to sync the these type of scopes?

    Your help will be highly appreciated.

     

    -Ajinath


    Ajinath
    Monday, November 15, 2010 7:38 AM

All replies

  • what type of SyncDirectionOrder is set on the server? 

     

     

    Monday, November 15, 2010 3:06 PM
  • It is UploadAndDownload . I set this because I want to syncronize the data from both sides in future.

    Thanks

    -Ajinath


    Ajinath
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:49 AM
  • I debugged the code and checked that no any changes are being selected in _ChangesSelected eve if I have inserted a new row. So I checked the SP _SelectChanges and had a look at the WHERE Clause and found that the newly inserted row satisfies the condision in the WHERE clause. i.e. newly inserted record's _tracking entry has the update_scope_local_id value as NULL and the local_update_Peer_timestamp is 8818114 which is greater than the scope's scope_timestamp 8818113  . Which shows that the newly inserted row should be selected but it dint.

    Does anyone have any idea why?

     

    -Ajinath


    Ajinath
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:44 AM