Eric Barro
ebarro at verizon.net
Fri Mar 14 01:48:02 CDT 2008
John, One annoying side effect of replication is the introduction of a GUID field to EVERY table that is part of the subscription and it is needed for replication to work. So, if your table structures cannot accommodate a new GUID field then you might want to reconsider going the route of replication. Replication also consumes a lot of resources on the processing side since it has to take a snapshot of the data at pre-defined times. Eric -----Original Message----- From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Asger Blond Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:30 PM To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server' Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Mirrored servers Database mirroring is not an option, since you want both databases to be operational. For the scenario given I would definitely choose replication, and more specifically: Peer-To-Peer Transactional Replication, which will give you fully operational databases on both sites and near real-time synchronization. Using this type of replication you have to make sure that conflicts can't arise, since Peer-To-Peer Transaction Replication doesn’t have conflict resolution, as Merge Replication have. You could choose Merge Replication, but then you would have latency of synchronization. Asger -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] På vegne af jwcolby Sendt: 13. marts 2008 16:59 Til: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server' Emne: [dba-SQLServer] Mirrored servers I have two servers running Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005. I would like to be able to have identical databases on both and work on both simultaneously, iow "keep them in sync". If I update a table on ServerA I need it to update on ServerB. If I update a table on ServerB I need it to update on ServerA. Is this possible? I do a fair amount of SQL Server stuff now and it is all running on ServerA. If it dies, then whatever I did is not on ServerB even though Server B is capable. If I somehow cause it to mirror stuff over to ServerB and then it dies, I could work on ServerB, but when I got ServerA working again, now I need to get the information synced back to ServerA. I have read a little about "failover" but that is not precisely what I am looking for. I would like to be able to run jobs on ServerA, then while that is running, run jobs on ServerB. When each finishes, the results need to post back to the other server. Is what I am trying to do possible, and if so where can I go to learn how to set it up. John W. Colby Colby Consulting www.ColbyConsulting.com _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com