SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Vinay Thakur / Replication / Latest Posts

RE: Replication

L' Eomot Inversé — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:35:09 GMT

[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (12/29/2009)[/b][hr]The grammar has been corrected. Apologies for any issues.[/quote]It would have been useful also to alter the question to make it clear it was talking about SQL 2000, and not about SQL 2008. (Actually, I don't know for sure whether that particular bug has been fixed or not, but I imagine MS will have fixed it as they haven't updated the list of products to which the bug applies to include SQL 2005 or SQL 2008).

RE: Replication

Rome1981 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:23:04 GMT

I want a refund on my point.

RE: Replication

jkoon-760461 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:25:37 GMT

I agree that some proofreading/editing seems to be needed on submissions - even with some of the featured articles I've had to strain to reconstruct sentences into proper English syntax as I read them. This question was very difficult to understand and most certainly misworded - unless the word is [b]un[/b]install, the question makes no sense at all.

RE: Replication

free_mascot — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:07:47 GMT

I also go wrong...I also think that there are only two instances. But actually it’s Total 3 instance including default.If we think logically nothing should be affected. But I still doubts if it's bug or not and thinking how it's affect to the other instance???

RE: Replication

DavidSimpson — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:42:36 GMT

I did not answer the question because I did not fully understand it. After reading the explanation on what was meant I would have missed it any way. I never would have thought having three instances of SQL Server with Instance 1(default) & 2 set up for replication then the process of uninstalling instance 3 would cause replication between 1 & 2 to fail. Interesting. Thank you for sharing your experience.David

RE: Replication

vk-kirov — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:35:38 GMT

[quote][b]skjoldtc (12/30/2009)[/b][hr]Is this a bug in SQL Server? Why would an instance that is not part of replication cause this behavior when removed?[/quote]The referenced article applies to SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (see [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811008#appliesto[/url]). It looks like a bug in that edition. I hope there's no such bug in 2005 and 2008 :-)

RE: Replication

OCTom — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:09:22 GMT

OK. Now that the fireworks has subsided... Shame on anyone who makes fun of someone's English proficiency. How many of you would be proficient in their language on a like forum? I'm putting away my shaking finger now.Is this a bug in SQL Server? Why would an instance that is not part of replication cause this behavior when removed?

RE: Replication

Andrew Watson-478275 — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:38:35 GMT

I have to admit that even now I understand the full question, I would still have got it wrong :crying:. As Vinay says, this is very surprising behaviour.

RE: Replication

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:03:13 GMT

The grammar has been corrected. Apologies for any issues.I will also award back points for this question.

RE: Replication

Somanna — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:31:21 GMT

Need to do ENGLISH Honors before I can understand the question properly. Anyway I understood my way and the answer was WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG ...!!! Its my height of stupidity for attempting at this questionThanks for reading

RE: Replication

webrunner — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:51:51 GMT

[quote][b]Vinay Thakur-585143 (12/29/2009)[/b][hr]I apologize for my english. I was in hurry while posting the QOD, the only thing I would like to share was my experience on replication that when we uninstall the named instance on the server (irrespective of that instance in involved into replication or not) replication on that server will fail.It should be like this"We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC (Default) to ABC\First. after 1 week we UNinstalled instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... UNINstall ABC\Second).even ABC\Second is not involved in replication the replication between default instance and ABC\First will failed) --- Also this I tested on Sql server 2000"This is very interesting stuff I observed and would like to share.... but everybody was laughing on my english.... :-)I blog for the same :http://vinay-thakur.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?_c01_BlogPart=blogentry&_c=BlogPart&handle=cns!645E3FC14D5130F2!229I learned a lot on QOD so want to contribute my one cent.I agree that my english is not so good.[/quote]Hello, Vinay,Thank you for the clarification. I'm sorry you had to have people mocking your English. The question should have been phrased better, but regardless of any trouble anyone had in reading the question, that was no excuse for comments that insult or mock you. Several other members have written expressing the same sentiment, so I hope you won't be discouraged from posting future questions due to a few mocking comments.My original comment (that I couldn't even hazard a guess for the answer from the question) was not intended as mockery of you (in fact I was mocking myself), but now that I have seen the other comments and read your comment in particular, I apologize personally if I unintentionally insulted you.Sincerely,webrunner

RE: Replication

Vinay Thakur-585143 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:40:44 GMT

I apologize for my english. I was in hurry while posting the QOD, the only thing I would like to share was my experience on replication that when we uninstall the named instance on the server (irrespective of that instance is involved into replication or not) replication on that server will fail.It should be like this"We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC (Default) to ABC\First. after 1 week we UNinstalled instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... UNINstall ABC\Second).even ABC\Second is not involved in replication the replication between default instance and ABC\First will failed) --- Also this I tested on Sql server 2000"This is very interesting stuff I observed and would like to share.... but everybody was laughing on my english.... :-)I blog for the same :http://vinay-thakur.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?_c01_BlogPart=blogentry&_c=BlogPart&handle=cns!645E3FC14D5130F2!229I learned a lot on QOD so want to contribute my one cent.I agree that my english is not so good.

RE: Replication

Dietmar Weickert — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:15:40 GMT

Got it wrong as well, as I found a third way to interpret the QotD:[quote]We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC to ABC\first. after 1 week we installed instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... unstall ABC\Second).[/quote]I thought of a replication between ABC (default instance) and ABC\First, and a reinstallation of ABC\Second. And nothing should happen in this case, should it?Regarding the language difficulties issue: I am Austrian, thus English is a second language to me. I have been lucky to get an excellent education at high school which prepared me for my career. English is a minor problem for me, but a major for many of my friends and colleagues.Working in a multinational bank with subsidiaries in many Slavic countries English is our working language, and sometimes it is fun to hear and see what people are talking and writing. Nevertheless I could hardly imagine anyone I know would dare publishing a text like this QotD in a forum read by thousands of people. Those who are not capable to do it better just know about their troubles with the foreign language and would look for help. The result may be imperfect but comprehensible.Nevertheless, mocking others neither helps any author lacking language capabilities nor us to understand the question. It is not a funny joke, it is just bad manners. Maybe I am a bit oversensitive here, but looking some time back in history some Herrenmenschen started their political career by humiliating and mocking others. Respect is a necessary foundation for effective communication. Lacking respect leads to quarrels in the better case and to wars in the worse.

RE: Replication

webrunner — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:43 GMT

[quote][b]sjimmo (12/29/2009)[/b][hr][quote]To be fair[/quote]We must remember that many people from many countries and cultures post here and we (Americans/English speaking majority) shouold not want to discourage anyone because of their grammer. Some languages place verbs in funny places to our way of thinking. We should conduct ourselves in a professional and courteous fashion throughout.I put the blame with the editors who recieve the proposed QOD, and then review it. After they have reviewed it they notify the submitter of when it wil be scheduled. I have to assume that they get flooded with QOD's daily and I would venture that they can't give each question an in depth test. But sometimes, like this one, the problems just seem to jump out at you. [/quote]I mostly agree, but in the case of a technical site, even though one can forgive a few minor errors (spelling, etc.), once the grammar becomes a bigger problem, it is sometimes impossible to know what is even being asked, or what information is relevant. For a SQL question, that can make it impossible and even unfair as a question. There should be a process for the person submitting the question to ensure that it is understandable in English. If the person has access to an English-speaking proofreader prior to submitting the question, that's great. But I think there should be some review of the grammar on SSC itself, prior to publishing the question. I realize, though, that that may be more work than SSC can support at the moment. But it should be on the list of things to implement.[quote]IMHO - I personally think that comments such as:[quote]OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english[/quote]have absolutely no business on here. How many of us have had to work with people who speak english as a second or even third language? Remember, we may get frustrated with their speech patterns, but they too get frustrated when we answer them because they may not always understand at first.[/quote]I completely agree. That's why I posted my first comment. Even if the original comment correctly states that some non-native speakers of English post poorly worded questions, they are not the only ones with the problem. As I said, a lot of supposedly native English speakers have trouble writing with proper grammar and intelligibility. We are all in this together, and to make the QOTD fun, it has to have well-written questions, no matter who is doing the writing. Comments such as the "the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country..." are not helpful in reaching that goal.- webrunner

RE: Replication

sjimmo — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:36:45 GMT

[quote]To be fair[/quote]We must remember that many people from many countries and cultures post here and we (Americans/English speaking majority) shouold not want to discourage anyone because of their grammer. Some languages place verbs in funny places to our way of thinking. We should conduct ourselves in a professional and courteous fashion throughout.I put the blame with the editors who recieve the proposed QOD, and then review it. After they have reviewed it they notify the submitter of when it wil be scheduled. I have to assume that they get flooded with QOD's daily and I would venture that they can't give each question an in depth test. But sometimes, like this one, the problems just seem to jump out at you.IMHO - I personally think that comments such as:[quote]OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english[/quote]have absolutely no business on here. How many of us have had to work with people who speak english as a second or even third language? Remember, we may get frustrated with their speech patterns, but they too get frustrated when we answer them because they may not always understand at first.

RE: Replication

webrunner — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:47:34 GMT

[quote][b]timfle (12/29/2009)[/b][hr]poorly written question, misspelled wordsgrammar incorrectdoes anyone read the questions before they are posted?OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english[/quote]To be fair, I don't think it's always people from foreign countries (i.e., not America) who post questions with fractured English. Too many Americans can't write coherently, either. But this is an English-language site, so regardless of the nation of origin, those who post questions should get them reviewed for correctness.- webrunner

RE: Replication

timfle — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:37:23 GMT

poorly written question, misspelled wordsgrammar incorrectdoes anyone read the questions before they are posted?OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english

RE: Replication

webrunner — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:21:36 GMT

I have to agree with the comments that the question was poorly worded. I would have gotten the question wrong anyway, but I couldn't even hazard a decent guess based on the way it was asked. :-P- webrunner

RE: Replication

sjimmo — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:33:44 GMT

The question implies that there are 3 instances of SQL Server (ABC (Default), ABC\First and ABC\Second). With Replication set up between [b]ABC and ABC\First[/b], the removal of ABC\Second [b]may not[/b] have an impact. There is nothing pointing in your scenario between ABC\First and ABC\Second so the removal of ABC\Second should have absolutely no impact.The way your anser is written, ABC is the name of the server, and ABC\First and ABC\Second are the [b]2[/b] instances of SQL Server. Thus, you cannot have replication between ABC and ABC\First. Thus, the answer would still be nothing because you cannot have replication between the server and an instance so Replication cannot be installed. Thus the replication must have been installed between the 2 instances, and now your answer is correct.In addition, please see the remarks above about the various editions and how they work.This is a very poorly described scenario.

RE: Replication

Daveee — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:01:11 GMT

This question is pretty poorly worded..."we setup the Transactional replication from ABC to ABC\first" - from this it sounds like ABC is just a default instance as no instance is specified."unstall" - must be a new option?

RE: Replication

Bhavesh_Patel — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:43:56 GMT

Jumble the words to get the correct Question .. :-P

RE: Replication

vk-kirov — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:24:32 GMT

I clicked on the link...[quote]Ref: [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811008[/url][/quote]...and I saw that the article 'apllies to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition'. Does it apply to SQL Server 2005, 2008, or even MSSQL 2000 Enterprise Edition? There's nothing about editions in the question...

RE: Replication

Robbert Hof — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:15:21 GMT

The QotD needs a Moderator !!!

RE: Replication

Herman van Midden — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:01:42 GMT

The question is very unclear. I guess it should be:We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC\[b]FIRST[/b] to ABC\[b]SECOND[/b]. after 1 week we [b]UN[/b]installed instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... un[b]IN[/b]stall ABC\Second).Only after reading the answer I understood the question. :angry:Herman

RE: Replication

Carlo Romagnano — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:54:30 GMT

My answer is correct, but it's luck!The text of the question is incomprehensible and the explanation is more and more incomprehensible.

Replication

Vinay Thakur-585143 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:46:01 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Replication[/B]