Replication Test\Check 6.5 & 2000 are in sync

Hi,
I am having MSSQL 6.5 with batch driven transactions
I am upgrading to 2000 and plan to do some black box
testing.
To test the batch jobs,I am planning to run the job on 6.5
and 2000 and test the rowcounts and records added/updated
based on datetime.(I don't have delete..so checking the
data on the basis of timestamp works)
However my rowcount and timestamp queries take a long time
to run on 6.5.(More than 50 mins as data volume and no of
tables are high)
I can't wait that long as the production server 6.5 has
jobs that run after every 30 mins.Is there a way just to
check whether 6.5 and 2000 data are in sync using some
built in utility or better algortithm(I don't want to
compare using SQL,but comparison at the lower level such
as file etc would do)
Basically do something like what replication or mirroring
does but not actually move the data but just check
Thanks
RakeshTake a look at the sp sp_replcounters... It shows how many records in the
log are awaiting replication...
"ar" <ambewadkarrakesh@.johndeere.com> wrote in message
news:05fb01c344f6$cb8265b0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am having MSSQL 6.5 with batch driven transactions
> I am upgrading to 2000 and plan to do some black box
> testing.
> To test the batch jobs,I am planning to run the job on 6.5
> and 2000 and test the rowcounts and records added/updated
> based on datetime.(I don't have delete..so checking the
> data on the basis of timestamp works)
> However my rowcount and timestamp queries take a long time
> to run on 6.5.(More than 50 mins as data volume and no of
> tables are high)
> I can't wait that long as the production server 6.5 has
> jobs that run after every 30 mins.Is there a way just to
> check whether 6.5 and 2000 data are in sync using some
> built in utility or better algortithm(I don't want to
> compare using SQL,but comparison at the lower level such
> as file etc would do)
> Basically do something like what replication or mirroring
> does but not actually move the data but just check
> Thanks
> Rakesh

Replication question - updatable subscription?

Hi all,

I am planning replication around a large SQL Database Server; 3 databases need to be replicated for reporting purposes.

My plan was to use Transaction Replication, as the Reporting database will be mostly read-only. However, we must add a whole bunch of additional, historical data to some of the tables of the reporting database that does not exist in the Publisher. I understand that changes can be made to subscriptions in Transaction Replication scenarios, ideally when the changes are few and far between. (Merge replication is excessive for our purposes.)

I don't want the additional historical data to be propagated back to the publisher. Is it possible that data is written to a subscriber in a Transactional Replication scenario without writing these updates to the Publisher? Given the nature of the data, there will not be conflicts between the historical data and the new changes applied from the publisher.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
FarazWhile you are flirting at the edge of what works well, at least what you've described is possible. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft does not recommend it, I'm not sure if they support it, but I have done it under very limited circumstances for very specific purposes.

This is not for the faint of heart. You need to think things out carefully. It might pay you to find someone experienced in replication that you can contract to help set things up and shake out the problems.

-PatP|||Thanks for the reply. We won't be using transactional replication. In fact, from my understanding, one of the goals of replication is ensuring that data consistency is maintained between publishers and subscribers; in our case, we don't actually want the data to be consistent. Hence, we'll go forth with a less elegant, but far simpler solution.

Thanks again!
-Farazsql