Other ways to replicate ?

We have an application that we need to replicate but the suppliers say that
their application does not support SQL replication. Can anyone recommend a
good third party replication tool ? Also if the application does not support
SQL replication would this mean that a 3rd party tool couldn`t be used as
well ?
Si
You could take a look at RedGate's Datacompare which won't modify the
schemas at all. As to whether it'll work, it depends on how your app is set
up as to whether it'll work - eg the tables must have PKs and the data must
be started from a consistent state.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Press them to find out what they mean by it their application does support
replication. I find it hard to believe that an application can't use
snapshot replication. If it doesn't support transactional replication it is
very poorly designed as transactional replication requires pk's.
Consider log shipping or database mirroring.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FABCE84E-51AB-49A4-8E1D-3392FBB22E04@.microsoft.com...
> We have an application that we need to replicate but the suppliers say
> that
> their application does not support SQL replication. Can anyone recommend a
> good third party replication tool ? Also if the application does not
> support
> SQL replication would this mean that a 3rd party tool couldn`t be used as
> well ?
> Si
|||What in an application can stop SQL replication working ?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Press them to find out what they mean by it their application does support
> replication. I find it hard to believe that an application can't use
> snapshot replication. If it doesn't support transactional replication it is
> very poorly designed as transactional replication requires pk's.
> Consider log shipping or database mirroring.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FABCE84E-51AB-49A4-8E1D-3392FBB22E04@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||It's more likely to be the other way round. If you require updatable
subscribers, the schema will be altered to add a column, and if your app
uses select * from articlename queries, it might break. There could also be
issues with triggers and cascading referential integrity. Difficult to say
exactly what they think the problem might be.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||The main problem is that they just updated a fox database into SQL and then
expected the application to work with no problems. The amount of things they
try and do in the application that SQL does out of the box is ridiculous.
Plus they don`t do any processing on the SQL server, everything is done on
the local machine.
I love it when people with no techincal knowledge make decisions on software
for my company without any guidance !
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> It's more likely to be the other way round. If you require updatable
> subscribers, the schema will be altered to add a column, and if your app
> uses select * from articlename queries, it might break. There could also be
> issues with triggers and cascading referential integrity. Difficult to say
> exactly what they think the problem might be.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
>
>