Replicated DB size
-
hi guys!!
I'm very confused!!!
I have implemented snapshot replication. SERVER A (replicates to) -> SERVER B (replicates to) -> SERVER C.
Everything is working fine almost 5 months.
The problem is the size of the DBases. In SERVER A, the size is 721 MB, in SERVER B is 1.7GB and in SERVER C is 327MB!!! How this can be?
In SERVER A I have the original DB, i apply columns filters in the replication to SERVER B. There any filters between SERVERS B an C.
The DB in SERVERS B and C shouldn't have the same??
Thankxx in advance
Cláudia
Regards,Cláudia Rego
www.footballbesttips.com
-
> I'm very confused!!!
> I have implemented snapshot replication.
Well, that explains that!
Sorry, couldn't resist. (Don't mind me -- I'm a replication-hating Luddite!)I'd have to see your configuration to tell you anything for certain, but my guess is simply that you're confusing size of database with number of data rows. The database can be quite large and yet the amount of data in it quite small -- that depends as much on how the database was defined, as anything.
A very rough analogy would be comparing the geographical size of states with their population. Alaska is the largest U.S. state geographically, but one of the smallest in terms of population; while Connecticut is physically small, but has a large number of people living in it.
If you think of the disk space allotted for a database as geography, and the data that inhabits it as the population, it might give you a little better picture about what's going on.
You could run DBCC SHRINKDATABASE on all three of the servers and see what kind of "shrinkage" you get. It squeezes out unused space within the database and returns to the OS what it isn't using. Kind of like, if Utah were to keep Salt Lake City and Provo, move them closer to each other, and then return the rest of the state to the federal government.
Another prime area of database growth is the transaction log, which is not where the data is kept, but where a log of the transactions against it are kept. If your database is set to 'autogrow' and you run a lot of transactions against the database, the size of your *.LDF files could grow, especially if a lot of transactions occur between transaction log backups. Even if you have a 'simple' recovery plan -- meaning you don't have any use for transaction log backups -- the size of the TLOG will still grow to accomodate the largest single transaction that you run.
-
....if Utah were to keep Salt Lake City and Provo, move them closer to each other, and then return the rest of the state to the federal government......in a Mormon stronghold that actively "goes forth and multiplies"...ain't going to happen...
-"Sorry, couldn't resist"...
Other than that...you missed your calling Lee - should've taken to teaching for a career...I know, I know...doesn't pay too well does it -
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Have you done rowcounts to confirm that the tables have the data they should ? Also, it might be better to replicate from A -> B and A-> C. Then C is not dependant on B, since the data originates from A anyway.
-
I confirm the number of rows inthe tables of the databases and this OK!!!
I will see the size of the log files to see if they is big.
Sometimes when i shrink db i get a bigger db... WHY???
Should i implement a recovery plan?? and don't have one..
Thankx,
Cláudia
Regards,Cláudia Rego
www.footballbesttips.com
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply