December 28, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Replication
Thanx.
Vinay
http://rdbmsexperts.com/Blogs/
http://vinay-thakur.spaces.live.com/
http://twitter.com/ThakurVinay
December 29, 2009 at 12:54 am
My answer is correct, but it's luck!
The text of the question is incomprehensible and the explanation is more and more incomprehensible.
December 29, 2009 at 1:01 am
The question is very unclear. I guess it should be:
We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC\FIRST to ABC\SECOND. after 1 week we UNinstalled instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... unINstall ABC\Second).
Only after reading the answer I understood the question. :angry:
Herman
December 29, 2009 at 1:15 am
The QotD needs a Moderator !!!
December 29, 2009 at 1:24 am
I clicked on the link...
...and I saw that the article 'apllies to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition'. Does it apply to SQL Server 2005, 2008, or even MSSQL 2000 Enterprise Edition? There's nothing about editions in the question...
December 29, 2009 at 2:43 am
Jumble the words to get the correct Question .. 😛
December 29, 2009 at 4:01 am
This question is pretty poorly worded...
"we setup the Transactional replication from ABC to ABC\first" - from this it sounds like ABC is just a default instance as no instance is specified.
"unstall" - must be a new option?
December 29, 2009 at 6:33 am
The question implies that there are 3 instances of SQL Server (ABC (Default), ABC\First and ABC\Second). With Replication set up between ABC and ABC\First, the removal of ABC\Second may not have an impact. There is nothing pointing in your scenario between ABC\First and ABC\Second so the removal of ABC\Second should have absolutely no impact.
The way your anser is written, ABC is the name of the server, and ABC\First and ABC\Second are the 2 instances of SQL Server. Thus, you cannot have replication between ABC and ABC\First. Thus, the answer would still be nothing because you cannot have replication between the server and an instance so Replication cannot be installed. Thus the replication must have been installed between the 2 instances, and now your answer is correct.
In addition, please see the remarks above about the various editions and how they work.
This is a very poorly described scenario.
Steve Jimmo
Sr DBA
“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
December 29, 2009 at 8:21 am
I have to agree with the comments that the question was poorly worded. I would have gotten the question wrong anyway, but I couldn't even hazard a decent guess based on the way it was asked. 😛
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
December 29, 2009 at 8:37 am
poorly written question, misspelled words
grammar incorrect
does anyone read the questions before they are posted?
OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english
December 29, 2009 at 8:47 am
timfle (12/29/2009)
poorly written question, misspelled wordsgrammar incorrect
does anyone read the questions before they are posted?
OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english
To be fair, I don't think it's always people from foreign countries (i.e., not America) who post questions with fractured English. Too many Americans can't write coherently, either. But this is an English-language site, so regardless of the nation of origin, those who post questions should get them reviewed for correctness.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
December 29, 2009 at 9:36 am
To be fair
We must remember that many people from many countries and cultures post here and we (Americans/English speaking majority) shouold not want to discourage anyone because of their grammer. Some languages place verbs in funny places to our way of thinking. We should conduct ourselves in a professional and courteous fashion throughout.
I put the blame with the editors who recieve the proposed QOD, and then review it. After they have reviewed it they notify the submitter of when it wil be scheduled. I have to assume that they get flooded with QOD's daily and I would venture that they can't give each question an in depth test. But sometimes, like this one, the problems just seem to jump out at you.
IMHO - I personally think that comments such as:
OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english
have absolutely no business on here. How many of us have had to work with people who speak english as a second or even third language? Remember, we may get frustrated with their speech patterns, but they too get frustrated when we answer them because they may not always understand at first.
Steve Jimmo
Sr DBA
“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am
sjimmo (12/29/2009)
To be fair
We must remember that many people from many countries and cultures post here and we (Americans/English speaking majority) shouold not want to discourage anyone because of their grammer. Some languages place verbs in funny places to our way of thinking. We should conduct ourselves in a professional and courteous fashion throughout.
I put the blame with the editors who recieve the proposed QOD, and then review it. After they have reviewed it they notify the submitter of when it wil be scheduled. I have to assume that they get flooded with QOD's daily and I would venture that they can't give each question an in depth test. But sometimes, like this one, the problems just seem to jump out at you.
I mostly agree, but in the case of a technical site, even though one can forgive a few minor errors (spelling, etc.), once the grammar becomes a bigger problem, it is sometimes impossible to know what is even being asked, or what information is relevant. For a SQL question, that can make it impossible and even unfair as a question. There should be a process for the person submitting the question to ensure that it is understandable in English. If the person has access to an English-speaking proofreader prior to submitting the question, that's great. But I think there should be some review of the grammar on SSC itself, prior to publishing the question. I realize, though, that that may be more work than SSC can support at the moment. But it should be on the list of things to implement.
IMHO - I personally think that comments such as:
OH - now I understand - the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country where they speak fractured english
have absolutely no business on here. How many of us have had to work with people who speak english as a second or even third language? Remember, we may get frustrated with their speech patterns, but they too get frustrated when we answer them because they may not always understand at first.
I completely agree. That's why I posted my first comment. Even if the original comment correctly states that some non-native speakers of English post poorly worded questions, they are not the only ones with the problem. As I said, a lot of supposedly native English speakers have trouble writing with proper grammar and intelligibility. We are all in this together, and to make the QOTD fun, it has to have well-written questions, no matter who is doing the writing. Comments such as the "the proof reading is outsourced to a foreign country..." are not helpful in reaching that goal.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
December 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Got it wrong as well, as I found a third way to interpret the QotD:
We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC to ABC\first. after 1 week we installed instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... unstall ABC\Second).
I thought of a replication between ABC (default instance) and ABC\First, and a reinstallation of ABC\Second. And nothing should happen in this case, should it?
Regarding the language difficulties issue: I am Austrian, thus English is a second language to me. I have been lucky to get an excellent education at high school which prepared me for my career. English is a minor problem for me, but a major for many of my friends and colleagues.
Working in a multinational bank with subsidiaries in many Slavic countries English is our working language, and sometimes it is fun to hear and see what people are talking and writing. Nevertheless I could hardly imagine anyone I know would dare publishing a text like this QotD in a forum read by thousands of people. Those who are not capable to do it better just know about their troubles with the foreign language and would look for help. The result may be imperfect but comprehensible.
Nevertheless, mocking others neither helps any author lacking language capabilities nor us to understand the question. It is not a funny joke, it is just bad manners. Maybe I am a bit oversensitive here, but looking some time back in history some Herrenmenschen started their political career by humiliating and mocking others. Respect is a necessary foundation for effective communication. Lacking respect leads to quarrels in the better case and to wars in the worse.
Best regards,
Dietmar Weickert.
December 29, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I apologize for my english. I was in hurry while posting the QOD, the only thing I would like to share was my experience on replication that when we uninstall the named instance on the server (irrespective of that instance is involved into replication or not) replication on that server will fail.
It should be like this"
We have server ABC and installed two instance on it ABC\First and ABC\Second. we setup the Transactional replication from ABC (Default) to ABC\First. after 1 week we UNinstalled instance ABC\Second(control panel\add remove program\... UNINstall ABC\Second).
even ABC\Second is not involved in replication the replication between default instance and ABC\First will failed) --- Also this I tested on Sql server 2000"
This is very interesting stuff I observed and would like to share.... but everybody was laughing on my english.... 🙂
I blog for the same :
I learned a lot on QOD so want to contribute my one cent.
I agree that my english is not so good.
Thanx.
Vinay
http://rdbmsexperts.com/Blogs/
http://vinay-thakur.spaces.live.com/
http://twitter.com/ThakurVinay
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply