Replication

[NoEd]

I am creating an application that will need to share data, to exist on a
company's intranet, and to be used by 50+ users. The sharing consists of
only added data. Each user will be able to see, but not change, data
entered by one of the other users. The transaction volume is probably 500
added records per month per user. Does this seem like a good situation for
replication? Since I have never used replication before, what should I do
and not do? Thanks in advance.

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Replication

NoEd wrote:[color=blue]
> I am creating an application that will need to share data, to exist
> on a company's intranet, and to be used by 50+ users. The sharing
> consists of only added data. Each user will be able to see, but not
> change, data entered by one of the other users. The transaction
> volume is probably 500 added records per month per user. Does this
> seem like a good situation for replication? Since I have never used
> replication before, what should I do and not do? Thanks in advance.[/color]

Replication is sutable when you need to merge *disconnected* databases into one
with all changes from all sources.

If your users are all on the same LAN you just have them all change the same
database. All data is in one place so no replication is required.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Replication

"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote in
news:CKjOf.1874 1$2O6.11021@new ssvr12.news.pro digy.com:
[color=blue]
> NoEd wrote:[color=green]
>> I am creating an application that will need to share data, to
>> exist on a company's intranet, and to be used by 50+ users. The
>> sharing consists of only added data. Each user will be able to
>> see, but not change, data entered by one of the other users. The
>> transaction volume is probably 500 added records per month per
>> user. Does this seem like a good situation for replication?
>> Since I have never used replication before, what should I do and
>> not do? Thanks in advance.[/color]
>
> Replication is sutable when you need to merge *disconnected*
> databases into one with all changes from all sources.
>
> If your users are all on the same LAN you just have them all
> change the same database. All data is in one place so no
> replication is required.[/color]

Correct.

However, one caveat:

While replication's purpose is to allow disconnected users to edit
data and then merge their changes back with other users of the same
data, it can only work when there is the *capability* for connecting
to the "mother ship." If there's no network connection available
between the usually disconnected user and some central location,
then replication can't work.

Replication cannot be done safely by exchanging replicas, either via
email or by disk (floppy disk, CD-ROM, Zip disk, whatever), because
replicas must be synchronized *in place* once they have been
initialitzed (that is, you can copy a replica to a new location if
it's going to be permanently edited from that location).

Replicas can be moved, but only through a command available only in
Replication Manager, the TSI Synchronizer or JRO. You can't do it
thorugh the file system.

But, as Rick says, as long as the users are connected to the same
LAN, they can simply share a single MDB, and no replication is
necessary.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/