[AccessD] Replication Manager or Briefcase

Ooops sorry that is NOT what I am suggesting. Keep the classic FE/BE design,
but put a replica on each local PC and put the synchronizer on some box that
is guaranteed to be up 99% of the time. The latter can be the database
server or any other box. In my case I chose my development box, since I
never shut it off.
 
So:
the main replica (let's call it the office replica) lives where your current
BE lives.
a replica exists on every PC in the branch.
the master replica lives on your development box.
you also have another replica on your box.
 
All but the master are managed replicas (i.e. the synchronizer does
everything).
 
This leaves you free to monkey with the master, to change table structures
etc., to write new code against the master and test until you're satisfied.
Once you're ready to roll out a new version of the BE, just synchronize with
your local replica, and next interval the synchronizer will propagate the
changes to every other replica. You don't even have to bring the system down
to achieve this.
 
To add new branch offices (assuming a WAN or VPN), place a synchroizer on
each branch's file server and have it synchronize the local replicas. Have
the HQ synchronizer manage the branch replicas. 
 
Drop boxes are necessary only for indirect (FTP or internet) replication,
but unnecessary for direct replication.
 
HTH,
Arthur
 
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of John Skolits
Sent: May 13, 2003 10:14 AM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Replication Manager or Briefcase



So if I understand this, you suggest foregoing the FE/BE design, place
everything in one DB and use replication? HMMM interesting.
 
But, if I have 5 of 7 users on a local network, I would want their data
refreshes to be immediate on the data tables. The remote users won't care if
they refresh only periodically.
I would think that in this scenario, I would prefer to have a FE/BE design
on the local network with the one shared BE being a replica. On the remotes,
I would also want FE/BE design but all their individual BEs be separate
replicas. 
But, now I'm mixing a shared BE and remote replica BEs. Is this a bad idea?
 
In addition, I like the idea of one replica on a local server (sub-hub)
managed by a synchronizer and then synchronized with the main hub replica. 
But, I thought each replica on the satellite PCs had to have a drop box. If
that's so, don't you have to install RepMnger on each PC have to have the
drop boxes?
 
Gee, a lot to learn.
 
John
 
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://databaseadvisors.com/pipermail/accessd/attachments/20030513/ef44fadd/attachment-0001.html>