December 29, 2005 at 4:27 pm
We're using transactional replication running one publisher pushing to one subscriber on another server. (SQL Server 2000 running on Windows Server 2003). The number of items (tables only) is about 1000. When it occasionally breaks/timeouts, it's a bit of a pain to start synchronizing or to re-initialize with that many items. Would there be a performance hit if we created 10 publishers each with 100 tables? This would help reduce restart time in the event of future breaks/timeouts.
December 29, 2005 at 10:45 pm
I think it would help, but are you talking about using other servers? Not sure you can have multiple publishers on one instance.
December 30, 2005 at 8:36 am
This would be multiple publications on 1 server 1 db pushing multiple subscriptions to another server 1 db. It is possible and does work. Just wondering about the performance advantage/disadvantage of multiple small publications running at the same time vs 1 large publication.
December 30, 2005 at 9:24 am
Ah, many people use multiple publications and it works well. Andy has a large box with over 200 dbs, and runs quite a few replications from one master db to the other 200 and it works well.
I was thinking as well, for potentially new clients and issues with restarts, maybe you could also do some horizontal partitioning as well if you can separate the data. Something like archived or old data in one publication and newer data in another.
December 30, 2005 at 9:37 am
Great! Thanks very much!
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply