Post reply

Rogue Replication

  • February 15, 2006 at 1:16 am

    #113396

    Hi Everyone,

    We are about to start upgrading to 2005...eeeekkkk.

    I have started by upgrading one of our test environments. I have to say the upgrade was very smooth...no problems.

    However, I have restored a couple of databases which originally ran on the server under 2K. These have gone on ok. But I now have some rogue publications appear under the replication node (The databases were used in replication). This seems odd because the server is not even configured for replication. I can't delete them because essentially..they don't exists.

    Any thoughts on how to remove these ?

    Have I made a blunder on the restore ?

    Many Thanks..Graeme

  • February 15, 2006 at 5:24 am

    #620970

    Check you meet the rules on upgrading replicated databases:

    # If you use SQL Server 2000, service pack 3 (SP3) or greater is required.

    # A Distributor can be any version as long as it is greater than or equal to the Publisher version (in many cases the Distributor is the same instance as the Publisher).

    # A Publisher can be any version as long as it less than or equal to the Distributor version.

    # Subscriber version depends on the type of publication:

    * A read-only Subscriber to a transactional publication can be any version within two versions of the Publisher version. For example: a SQL Server version 7.0 Publisher running can have SQL Server 2005 Subscribers; and a SQL Server 2005 Publisher can have SQL Server version 7.0 Subscribers.

    * An updatable Subscriber to a SQL Server 2005 transactional publication can be any version equal to or greater than Microsoft SQL Server 2000 SP3.

    * A Subscriber to a merge publication can be any version less than or equal to the Publisher version.

  • February 15, 2006 at 7:49 am

    #621042

    There is data in the system tables that marked things are replicated. That's why they appear in SSMS. You can manually reset things in the system tables, but you'd need to dig into what is set.

  • February 15, 2006 at 8:57 am

    #621074

    Hey,

    Thanks a lot for your comments.

    I will endeavour to sort my problem.

    Regards...Graeme

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply