none
Do I need to break up the scope for each individual client? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I start to think about the entire architecture of my application.

    Here is my scenario:

    I have a SQL server 2008 and about 50 laptops with SQL server express installed. The database schema may get updated in the future. But we cannot get all databases updated at the same time.

    The 50 laptops connect to the server through not reliable internet connection. I should synchronize the data between the SQL server and SQL server express in the laptops.

    The database has about 100 tables. On basis of the previous response in this forum, I am going to break up scopes into smaller group of tables (e.g., download only scopes, upload only scopes, frequently updated bidirectional scope, etc...). I think this is very good.

    I also would like to know if it is better to create different scope for each individual laptops??? In this case, the scopes in the server side will be broken into many small scopes (about 150 scopes).  

    I appreciate your advice!!!

    Thanks!

    Monday, November 14, 2011 12:51 PM

Answers

All replies

  • will the clients have subset of data via filters? or will they have the same set of data?

    speaking of schema updates, Sync Framework doesnt support OOTB synching schemas.

    I have a couple of email exchanges with Steve (Speedware) and he has come up with some clever ways of updating the schema and handling scenarios where clients are not migrated to the new schema at once.

    I'll ping him if he can reply here or if i can post the content of our email exchanges.

     

    Monday, November 14, 2011 1:14 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you very much!

    The clients will not have subset of data via filters. The data in all database should be same. That will be great if we have some better way to handle the schema updates.

    I look forward to your response!

    Thanks again!

    Monday, November 14, 2011 2:05 PM
  • Here is a good solution to handle the situation when the database schema has been updated: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/syncdevdiscussions/thread/5574849a-b213-4cf5-a349-8a02bd376d29

    However, in my case, we still need to allow the old version to synchronize.

    • Marked as answer by jz2012 Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:37 PM
    Monday, November 14, 2011 11:55 PM
  • that updates the database objects (sps, udt, etc...) but does not update the scope definition itself in the scope_config table.
    Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:02 AM
    Moderator
  • Good evening June,

    As you mentioned in your previous post:

    "I have a couple of email exchanges with Steve (Speedware) and he has come up with some clever ways of updating the schema and handling scenarios where clients are not migrated to the new schema at once."

    Could you please follow up this for me when you have a chance? I appreciate your help.

    Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:59 AM
  • just got hold of Steve who's on holidays. unfortunately, i dont think we can share the entire code set. so i'll just post the steps.

    its somehow similar to the approach here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/syncdevdiscussions/thread/4af321b6-4678-4620-af46-98c560cc2bc6 and this: http://jtabadero.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/part-4-synchronizing-tables-with-different-table-names-and-column-names/

    i can send you a "sanitized" version of the steps that Steve has come up with.

     


    • Edited by JuneTModerator Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:38 PM
    • Marked as answer by jz2012 Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:38 PM
    Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:37 PM
    Moderator
  • Thanks June!

    The hyperlinks in your post are very helpful. Actually, a few months ago, I posted a question which was similar to the second link. I am not sure how the extra computation have an infuence on the performance. But I will know after have completed my project.

    Could you please send me the "sanitized" version of the steps that Steve has come up with to znbget@yahoo.com?

    Thanks again!

    Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:59 PM
  • In my case, all client database remians same, I think I do not need to maintain so many rows in the table "scope_config" and "scope_info". With changes of database schema, the issues comes from the stored procedure,s mostly, the bulkinsert sp. We can use the method introduced in your second hyperlink to solve this.

    • Edited by jz2012 Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:36 PM
    Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:35 PM