Data Enabled WebSite

I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite proficient
with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop the
site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative is PHP
& MySQL.
I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option and
whether there is truth to this or not.
ThanksIf your quite proficient in that why would you want to change? Being
familiar with a tool(s) goes a long way and can help to reduce costs quite a
bit by being more accurate, confident and faster.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite proficient
> with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop the
> site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative is
PHP
> & MySQL.
> I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option and
> whether there is truth to this or not.
> Thanks
>|||Exactly, my thoughts precisely however if the general opinion was that I was
going down the wrong path then i would be forced to learn new tricks in
order to complete the task correctly.
If there general opinion is that it's mrerly a matter of choice then I'll
stay with what I know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OoFH5sNoDHA.1884@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> If your quite proficient in that why would you want to change? Being
> familiar with a tool(s) goes a long way and can help to reduce costs quite
a
> bit by being more accurate, confident and faster.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
proficient
> > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop
the
> > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> >
> > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative is
> PHP
> > & MySQL.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option and
> > whether there is truth to this or not.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||Murphy,
Stick with your initial tools. You are building a solution that assumes IIS
and SQL Server, but these are very well accepted technology solutions.
bill burrows
"Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
news:uCcCN1NoDHA.2216@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Exactly, my thoughts precisely however if the general opinion was that I
was
> going down the wrong path then i would be forced to learn new tricks in
> order to complete the task correctly.
> If there general opinion is that it's mrerly a matter of choice then I'll
> stay with what I know.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OoFH5sNoDHA.1884@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > If your quite proficient in that why would you want to change? Being
> > familiar with a tool(s) goes a long way and can help to reduce costs
quite
> a
> > bit by being more accurate, confident and faster.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> proficient
> > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop
> the
> > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > >
> > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative
is
> > PHP
> > > & MySQL.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option
and
> > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Get a decent database structure and access.
You already know sql server so will be able to cunstruct
that easily and a decent stored procedure interface.
Without this there is not hope of building a reliable
efficient system. You can spend the time you would have
spent learning a new database on testing and refining this
one.
Adain you should find it easier to learn and be effective
in (make less serious mistakes) in asp.net than in php if
you already know asp well.
If you go for php and mysql you will just be another
beginner trying to hack together a web site.|||Ignore the advice!
I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open source,
reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET route.
SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful platform
to code on.
"Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite proficient
> with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop the
> site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative is
PHP
> & MySQL.
> I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option and
> whether there is truth to this or not.
> Thanks
>|||Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET myself, but
MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now that's said;
go with .NET and SQL Server!
--
Carsten Thomsen
Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
"Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> Ignore the advice!
> I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open source,
> reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET route.
> SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
platform
> to code on.
> "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
proficient
> > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop
the
> > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> >
> > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative is
> PHP
> > & MySQL.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option and
> > whether there is truth to this or not.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||As I will be hosting the site with a hosting company who provide the SQL db
etc cost is not an issue to me.
"CT" <carstent@.spammersgoawaydotnetservices.biz> wrote in message
news:%23njCwicoDHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET myself, but
> MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now that's
said;
> go with .NET and SQL Server!
> --
> Carsten Thomsen
> Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
> "Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> > Ignore the advice!
> >
> > I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open source,
> > reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET
route.
> >
> > SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
> platform
> > to code on.
> >
> > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> proficient
> > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to develop
> the
> > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > >
> > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better alternative
is
> > PHP
> > > & MySQL.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option
and
> > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||If it's for serious use, go .NET/ASP etc.
If it's for a hobby site (say a VA, if you're afollower of my hobby, FS!)
then MySQl, and PHP are good. Although I still use ASP and SQL.
Angus
"Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
news:#KHGm4coDHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As I will be hosting the site with a hosting company who provide the SQL
db
> etc cost is not an issue to me.
> "CT" <carstent@.spammersgoawaydotnetservices.biz> wrote in message
> news:%23njCwicoDHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET myself,
but
> > MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now that's
> said;
> > go with .NET and SQL Server!
> >
> > --
> > Carsten Thomsen
> > Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
> > http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
> > "Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > Ignore the advice!
> > >
> > > I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open
source,
> > > reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET
> route.
> > >
> > > SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
> > platform
> > > to code on.
> > >
> > > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> > proficient
> > > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to
develop
> > the
> > > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > > >
> > > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better
alternative
> is
> > > PHP
> > > > & MySQL.
> > > >
> > > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option
> and
> > > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Hi
ASP.NET and SQL Server is the way forward.
Good place to get ASP.NET and SQL Server hosting web space is:
http://www.dotnet-webhosting.com/sql-server-hosting/default.aspx
£22/Month (included web space, SQL Server DB and free domain)
Regards
G,
"Angus Lepper" <CEO@.AngusEnterprises.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<OH9CvnCwDHA.1272@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
> If it's for serious use, go .NET/ASP etc.
> If it's for a hobby site (say a VA, if you're afollower of my hobby, FS!)
> then MySQl, and PHP are good. Although I still use ASP and SQL.
> Angus
> "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> news:#KHGm4coDHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > As I will be hosting the site with a hosting company who provide the SQL
> db
> > etc cost is not an issue to me.
> >
> > "CT" <carstent@.spammersgoawaydotnetservices.biz> wrote in message
> > news:%23njCwicoDHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET myself,
> but
> > > MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now that's
> said;
> > > go with .NET and SQL Server!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carsten Thomsen
> > > Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
> > > http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
> > > "Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > > Ignore the advice!
> > > >
> > > > I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open
> source,
> > > > reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET
> route.
> > > >
> > > > SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
> platform
> > > > to code on.
> > > >
> > > > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> proficient
> > > > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to
> develop
> the
> > > > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better
> alternative
> is
> PHP
> > > > > & MySQL.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option
> and
> > > > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >|||Hi
We offer a very good and reliable service.
http://www.nt-webspace.com
Only £6 / Month and as a special offer we are giving away free domain
till 31st Dec 2003.
Here are the plan details
==========================NO SETUP FEES!
30 day Money Back Guarantee
Windows 2003 ® / IIS ® 6.0 Servers!
24 hour - 7 day a week support!
Unlimited web page updates!
Personal cgi-bin directory
200 MB Disk Space! (Special Offer now 400 MB !! )
Pop3 E-mail boxes with unlimited aliases and auto-responders!
2 GB / Month Bandwidth Transfer!
Microsoft Active Server ?
FTP access for updating web site
Microsoft Access ®/ FoxPro ® Database Support!
Microsoft MS SQL Server 7.0 (£27/mo. additional
Regards
NT-Webspace.com
"Angus Lepper" <CEO@.AngusEnterprises.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<OH9CvnCwDHA.1272@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
> If it's for serious use, go .NET/ASP etc.
> If it's for a hobby site (say a VA, if you're afollower of my hobby, FS!)
> then MySQl, and PHP are good. Although I still use ASP and SQL.
> Angus
> "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> news:#KHGm4coDHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > As I will be hosting the site with a hosting company who provide the SQL
> db
> > etc cost is not an issue to me.
> >
> > "CT" <carstent@.spammersgoawaydotnetservices.biz> wrote in message
> > news:%23njCwicoDHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET myself,
> but
> > > MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now that's
> said;
> > > go with .NET and SQL Server!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carsten Thomsen
> > > Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
> > > http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
> > > "Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > > Ignore the advice!
> > > >
> > > > I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open
> source,
> > > > reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the .NET
> route.
> > > >
> > > > SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
> platform
> > > > to code on.
> > > >
> > > > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> proficient
> > > > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to
> develop
> the
> > > > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better
> alternative
> is
> PHP
> > > > > & MySQL.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each option
> and
> > > > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >|||www.oneandone.co.uk are rather good.
Angus
"NT-Webspace.com" <gbaryah@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:792f1e6b.0312120107.7c2f9b03@.posting.google.com...
> Hi
> We offer a very good and reliable service.
> http://www.nt-webspace.com
> Only £6 / Month and as a special offer we are giving away free domain
> till 31st Dec 2003.
> Here are the plan details
> ==========================> NO SETUP FEES!
> 30 day Money Back Guarantee
> Windows 2003 ® / IIS ® 6.0 Servers!
> 24 hour - 7 day a week support!
> Unlimited web page updates!
> Personal cgi-bin directory
> 200 MB Disk Space! (Special Offer now 400 MB !! )
> Pop3 E-mail boxes with unlimited aliases and auto-responders!
> 2 GB / Month Bandwidth Transfer!
> Microsoft Active Server T
> FTP access for updating web site
> Microsoft Access ®/ FoxPro ® Database Support!
> Microsoft MS SQL Server 7.0 (£27/mo. additional
> Regards
> NT-Webspace.com
>
> "Angus Lepper" <CEO@.AngusEnterprises.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<OH9CvnCwDHA.1272@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
> > If it's for serious use, go .NET/ASP etc.
> >
> > If it's for a hobby site (say a VA, if you're afollower of my hobby,
FS!)
> > then MySQl, and PHP are good. Although I still use ASP and SQL.
> >
> > Angus
> > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > news:#KHGm4coDHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > As I will be hosting the site with a hosting company who provide the
SQL
> > db
> > > etc cost is not an issue to me.
> > >
> > > "CT" <carstent@.spammersgoawaydotnetservices.biz> wrote in message
> > > news:%23njCwicoDHA.2732@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Not sure its a good idea to ignore the advice... I'm all .NET
myself,
> > but
> > > > MySQL and PHP certainly is a good "cost free" alternative. Now
that's
> > said;
> > > > go with .NET and SQL Server!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carsten Thomsen
> > > > Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
> > > > http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=105
> > > > "Andrew Banks" <banksy@.blablablueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:TD7pb.3738$Yl6.26235112@.news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > > > Ignore the advice!
> > > > >
> > > > > I work day in day out with PHP/MySQL and although they are open
> > source,
> > > > > reliable and easy to work with, I am now opting to go down the
.NET
> > route.
> > > > >
> > > > > SQL Server is a more powerful database and .NET is a more powerful
> > platform
> > > > > to code on.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Murphy" <murphy@.murphy.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:e9WP3fNoDHA.1020@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > I am looking at developing a data enabled web site. I am quite
> > proficient
> > > > > > with SQL server, VB & ASP. For these reasons I have decided to
> > develop
> > the
> > > > > > site in ASP.NET (learning presently) with an SQL Server backend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been told this is not the way to go and the better
> > alternative
> > is
> > PHP
> > > > > > & MySQL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would appreciate any feedback re the pros and cosn of each
option
> > and
> > > > > > whether there is truth to this or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

Data Connections for SQL Server Express in Visual Studio Express

I have an Excel add-in that connects to a SQL Server Express 2005
database. I've decided to create a configuration piece for this add-in
in Visual Studio 2005 Express. I added a data connection using the data
connection wizard and all appeared to go well. Anyways when I attempt
to open SQL Server Express to administer the database, it was corrupted
and I had to restore it.

I eventually got it to work correctly (I'm pretty sure I followed
pretty much the same steps as before), but I was just wondering if
anyone had experienced problems like this? I find it a bit scary that
it may be that easy to corrupt the database by just creating a data
connection.Whats the error message of the database, that you mean that the db is
corrupt ? Maybe you did something wrong in there. The be would be to
post you used code here as well as the error message you are facing.

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.|||I have to apologize -- I can't recreate the error and I didn't write
the orginal error message down.

If I see it again I will post. Thanks for your response.

Crazy

Jens wrote:
> Whats the error message of the database, that you mean that the db is
> corrupt ? Maybe you did something wrong in there. The be would be to
> post you used code here as well as the error message you are facing.
> HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

Data aggregation, syhcronization, and search

Hello All,
I know that this problem is not SQL Server specific but I decided to
post it here because it is a problem that I am certain many of you
expericenced (or at least thought about).
In my system, I have a central SQL Server Database and number of
remote "data providers". Some of these data providers are other SQL
Servers and others are other databases or other data provider services
that expose a database-like interface.
We provide two levels of search capability in the system. The user can
search either the central database, or search one specific data
provider. One of the new requirements, was to provide a global search,
which would search the central database and all the data providers at
once.
Performing a distributed is prohibitive in our scenario because we
have many data providers and they remotelly located. To minimize the
search time, my first reaction was to create a copy of the data from
the remote providers on the central database and keep it in synch with
the data in the remote data providers. By doing this, I would expect
to simplify the search by having simply a search in the central
database.
However, a number of new question concerning data synchronization
arise:
1. How can I keep the data in the central db in synch with the remote
data providers? (If they all were SQL Server databases, I would use
merger replication...but they aren't?)
2. How to handle disconnects? If the remote provider disconnets and
reconnects, some of the data might be stale. In pronciple, I could
take a new snapshot and keep the data in synch from that point.
However, this is very expensive!! Do you know of any other techniques
for data synchronization that would minimize network traffic?
3. Is this a good approach? What do you think?
Your opinion is gratly appreciated.
Kind regards
CD
Hi
"crbd98@.yahoo.com" wrote:

> Hello All,
> I know that this problem is not SQL Server specific but I decided to
> post it here because it is a problem that I am certain many of you
> expericenced (or at least thought about).
> In my system, I have a central SQL Server Database and number of
> remote "data providers". Some of these data providers are other SQL
> Servers and others are other databases or other data provider services
> that expose a database-like interface.
> We provide two levels of search capability in the system. The user can
> search either the central database, or search one specific data
> provider. One of the new requirements, was to provide a global search,
> which would search the central database and all the data providers at
> once.
> Performing a distributed is prohibitive in our scenario because we
> have many data providers and they remotelly located. To minimize the
> search time, my first reaction was to create a copy of the data from
> the remote providers on the central database and keep it in synch with
> the data in the remote data providers. By doing this, I would expect
> to simplify the search by having simply a search in the central
> database.
> However, a number of new question concerning data synchronization
> arise:
> 1. How can I keep the data in the central db in synch with the remote
> data providers? (If they all were SQL Server databases, I would use
> merger replication...but they aren't?)
> 2. How to handle disconnects? If the remote provider disconnets and
> reconnects, some of the data might be stale. In pronciple, I could
> take a new snapshot and keep the data in synch from that point.
> However, this is very expensive!! Do you know of any other techniques
> for data synchronization that would minimize network traffic?
> 3. Is this a good approach? What do you think?
> Your opinion is gratly appreciated.
> Kind regards
> CD
>
You don't say how you currently search the remote data providers! It may be
more acceptable for the users if the global search initially searched the
central database and returned the results and then searched the remote
databases which would return something to the user quicker and reduce the
need to speed up the remote searches.
If you held the data centrally, you would also need to know how much latency
would be acceptable for the data, if you could get away with uploading once a
day out of hours then this could be an easier solution to implement.
John
|||Answers inline.
Hilary Cotter
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
<crbd98@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176094164.164628.321030@.q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello All,
> I know that this problem is not SQL Server specific but I decided to
> post it here because it is a problem that I am certain many of you
> expericenced (or at least thought about).
> In my system, I have a central SQL Server Database and number of
> remote "data providers". Some of these data providers are other SQL
> Servers and others are other databases or other data provider services
> that expose a database-like interface.
> We provide two levels of search capability in the system. The user can
> search either the central database, or search one specific data
> provider. One of the new requirements, was to provide a global search,
> which would search the central database and all the data providers at
> once.
> Performing a distributed is prohibitive in our scenario because we
> have many data providers and they remotelly located. To minimize the
> search time, my first reaction was to create a copy of the data from
> the remote providers on the central database and keep it in synch with
> the data in the remote data providers. By doing this, I would expect
> to simplify the search by having simply a search in the central
> database.
> However, a number of new question concerning data synchronization
> arise:
> 1. How can I keep the data in the central db in synch with the remote
> data providers? (If they all were SQL Server databases, I would use
> merger replication...but they aren't?)
I would use transactional replication to replicate the remote SQL Servers to
the central location. For the non-SQL Server data providers depending on the
amount of changes, the volume of data and whether you can track changes you
should be able to write something that will bring the data locally.
> 2. How to handle disconnects? If the remote provider disconnets and
> reconnects, some of the data might be stale. In pronciple, I could
> take a new snapshot and keep the data in synch from that point.
> However, this is very expensive!! Do you know of any other techniques
> for data synchronization that would minimize network traffic?
You need to implement some method of change tracking so only the changes
will move each time rather than the entire data set.
> 3. Is this a good approach? What do you think?
>
The network hop is always problematic and moving data locally is one
approach to avoid it. Another option might be to move all providers locally
and then have the clients use a remote access solution to access the central
server/repository. This will work well if your links are stable and well
connected.

> Your opinion is gratly appreciated.
> Kind regards
> CD
>