Re: Cascaded replication and initializing replicated sites

Posted in 1997

Joel Vannorsdel — Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:42 -0500 — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

--------------5022133A2A37640EA8D05EEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob; The company I work for Praxis International has a suite of products developed for just this type of application called OmniEnterprise. We provide replication solutions to and from many different platforms and databases. We also support cascade and protected update anywhere replication. Our web site www.PraxisInt.com has some very good information on replication and what to look for. Of course it also has information concerning our products. Take a look there and let me know if you have any questions. You can reply via email or give me a call at (817)370-0532. Joel Vannorsdel Rob van der Krogt wrote: > Hello reader, > > We are currently determining how to apply Informix Enterprise > Replication. Currently wee foresee two problems. I would like to know: > > 1. if anybode has encountered the same problems > 2. how these problems were solved > > First some background information: > > We are setting up an infrastructure which will consist of 500 remote > sites connected to on central site through a low bandwidth, high > latency > . These 500 servers all are equipped with an Informix server and > contains a database which holds a subset of the complete dataset > stored > at the central site. > > The following two problems are foreseen: > > (a) Initialisation of new sites/recovery of crashed sites. > > There are no standard features provided by Informix to initialise a > new > site based on the replication definitions. Are there any people that > have encountered the same type op problem? > > (b) Cascaded replication > > It is not possible to implement cascaded replication, Which means that > a > tupels that are part of two replication definitions are always > replicated correctly. Did anybody design a workaround for this. We > could > split up the 500 remote sites in multiple replication definition > instead > of one. > > Thanks in advance for your time and effort, > Greetings, > Rob --------------5022133A2A37640EA8D05EEF Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> Rob; The company I work for Praxis International has a suite of products developed for just this type of application called OmniEnterprise.  We provide replication solutions to and from many different platforms and databases. We also support cascade and protected update anywhere replication.  Our web site <A HREF="http://www.praxisint.com/">www.PraxisInt.com</A>; has some very good information on replication and what to look for.  Of course it also has information concerning our products.  Take a look there and let me know if you have any questions.  You can reply via email or give me a call at (817)370-0532. Joel Vannorsdel   Rob van der Krogt wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Hello reader, We are currently determining how to apply Informix Enterprise Replication. Currently wee foresee two problems. I would like to know: 1. if anybode has encountered the same problems 2. how these problems were solved First some background information: We are setting up an infrastructure which will consist of 500 remote sites connected to on central site through a low bandwidth, high latency . These 500 servers all are equipped with an Informix server and contains a database which holds a subset of the complete dataset stored at the central site. The following two problems are foreseen: (a) Initialisation of new sites/recovery of crashed sites. There are no standard features provided by Informix to initialise a new site based on the replication definitions. Are there any people that have encountered the same type op problem? (b) Cascaded replication It is not possible to implement cascaded replication, Which means that a tupels that are part of two replication definitions are always replicated correctly. Did anybody design a workaround for this. We could split up the 500 remote sites in multiple replication definition instead of one. Thanks in advance for your time and effort, Greetings, Rob</BLOCKQUOTE>   </HTML> --------------5022133A2A37640EA8D05EEF--