BiDirectional Replication

Has anyone successfully implemented Bi-Directional Transactional replication?
The documentation on BoL is very limited and there are not too many info
available outside too. We are planning to have active-active SQLServers, that
needs dynamic transactional replication.
I would really appreciate practical advise on BiDirectional Transactional
Repl.
This should help:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;820675
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...lsamp_3ve6.asp
Rgds,
Paul Ibison
|||Paul,
I did already find this info from BoL.
I am looking for someone who has done this already. I spoke to a few DBAs
who haven't heard of this, but they have implemented Transaction Repl before.
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> This should help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;820675
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...lsamp_3ve6.asp
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison
>
>
|||This info is not in BOL - there are many setup scripts in the links I
posted. I have implemented it but didn't like the fact that I had to write
my own conflict resolvers and opted for merge instead, despite its overall
slower transfer rate (unless you are updating the same row many times I
would expect this to be generally the case). Also, schema changes will be
more restrictive. Hilary had implemented it in his work, so he can probably
add more if you want to go down this path.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Thanks, Paul. I do appreciate your time.
Hillary, Can you please shed some light on this?
PS : Paul : The updated BoL is available as a download contains the link
that you specified in your first response. I thought of providing this info,
so that people are aware of the availability of the updated BoL.
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> This info is not in BOL - there are many setup scripts in the links I
> posted. I have implemented it but didn't like the fact that I had to write
> my own conflict resolvers and opted for merge instead, despite its overall
> slower transfer rate (unless you are updating the same row many times I
> would expect this to be generally the case). Also, schema changes will be
> more restrictive. Hilary had implemented it in his work, so he can probably
> add more if you want to go down this path.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||Well spotted - I'm using the old one at home. Thanks for the correction
Rgds,
Paul Ibison
"HowdyDowdy" <HowdyDowdy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A961EFBF-5E13-4178-902B-4C50F8972038@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Paul. I do appreciate your time.
> Hillary, Can you please shed some light on this?
> PS : Paul : The updated BoL is available as a download contains the link
> that you specified in your first response. I thought of providing this
info,[vbcol=seagreen]
> so that people are aware of the availability of the updated BoL.
>
> "Paul Ibison" wrote:
write[vbcol=seagreen]
overall[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
probably[vbcol=seagreen]