Interesting remote update scenario - PLEASE HELP

[metaman]

Hi

Here is the scenario:

* Our client has a file-server with an Access DB
* We have a Win NT web-server with the same Access DB

* Our client’s DB is constantly being updated with the latest stock etc. from their factory.
* Our DB gets updated by our client’s reps. They are updating our DB because we have a web-server and they can dial into it to update the DB with their sales etc. They cannot dial their own file-server.

The client’s server also dials into our web-server. This is done 3 times a day.


The question:

* Is there a way to update our DB with the client’s DB AND visa versa so that both are the same at the end of this process? This should be done when the client’s server dials our server.


Below is a diagram of the situation:

(image file size = ~10kb @ 600x400x16)

Thanks in advance
MetaMan

 

[MichaelRed]

Replication?

Replication!

MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over

 

[metaman]

Replication?

Do you mean the two databases will cause some kind of an error (called “replication” / caused by “replication”) or do you call what I’m trying to do “replication”?

Sorry for my stupidity as far as DB’s are concerned!

What would you suggest?

* The factory is about 100 kilometres (60 miles) from our offices. I don’t think it would be practical to let the factory update the DB on our web-server (thus having only 1 DB).
* The reps will use PDA’s to do their work and dial into our web-server via cell phone.

 

[MichaelRed]

Replication is the term used by Microsoft for the synchronization of two databases. Read the literature. Some like it some don't. I'm generally NOT a fan, but it appears to suit your situation better than most. the only alternative is do the same process either in code or manually.

MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over

 

[lxn]

Hi, your situation seems to be like what I'm doing right now. But I might be wrong, since I'm just starting on all this. Um, basically what I'm doing is coding a part of an application that, when the clients dial in, allows the clients to update the server's DB based on the records on their DB, and also update their DB if any changes were made in the server's DB. I'm still in the process of coding this, and testing it in the locan network in the office, so I don't know exactly how this works out when it's put to use, but I think this should work. I don't know what "replication" is , so I guess I'm doing this in code, like MichaelRed mentioned above.
I don't know if that helps you or does it create more confusions, but again, I'm just a newbie, so bear with me plz.

Merlin

 

[metaman]

Yep! It sounds like the same situation. I think I will do some research on this "replication" thing. Maybe its some kind of a shortcut that the clever people use ;-)

 

[metaman]

Hey lxn.

I have posted this question in a couple of usenet newsgroups. So far I got two responses and both of them suggested the "replication" thing. For your convenience I will post their peplies below:

=====

comp.databases.ms-access

Although I've never used it, I believe replication is what your after.
This will allow two databases to sync themselves periodically and
resolve any conflicts. Search help on replication and go from there.
Like I said, I've never used it but I am sure there are people here
that can enlighten you further.

--

comp.databases

What you are attempting is called "replication", and there are many problems
to consider. You may find some info on the topic by using a search engine.
Also, Lotus Notes handles replication fairly well, so you may find some info
at lotus.

=====

I hope this helps you in some way.
MetaMan

 

[lxn]

Hi, MetaMan
Thanks for the information, I'll be sure to learn how to use Replication.
Um, however, it seems that my way of coding it is working fine, and I did not use replication at all (I didn't even know what it was up till yesterday). Maybe our situations are a little different, I don't know.
In the things I'm working on, all the DB are already put to use. So there are a number of clients that manage a set of records that's only related to themselves. And in the office, we maintain all the records in our DB. What we are doing is that, whenever an individual client dial in, the program will then take only the records related to the specific client from the office DB, and compare it with the client DB. If any new changes are made from the client side, then it will update the data in the office DB, and if any new record exist in Office DB that's not in Client DB, then it will update it as well. I did this just by coding a few methods of say 250 lines. And in the testing stage, it seems to be working fine, the only thing we need to change when we put it to use, is to change the path name, which is contained in the existing application already.
So, I don't know if you are trying to do the same thing, or maybe something different. I just thought, if you are doing the same thing, and it seems that everyone says Replication creates problems, then the way I'm doing it might be an alternative way.
Just a thought, tell me if there's anything wrong in what I wrote, NEED TO LEARN!!!
oh, I just realized, what you are tring to do, probably will allow any changes made from any client or the server be updated, so that all the ppl accessing to the DB are seeing basically the exact same thing at all times. Yeah, so I guess it it a little different from my situation, where only the specific client can change the information that's related only to themselves, and the office only maintains the whole DB, except maybe make changes to a coupld of tables. So um, I don't know, maybe you can find a way to code this without using Replication, or maybe you have to use it

k, good luck.

Merlin