Post reply

Downside to max_text_repl_size?

  • May 11, 2004 at 2:03 am

    #160871

    We are replicating a table with a large text field (filled with XML results), which we have had to increase the max_text_repl_size option from its default of 64K to around 200K.
     
    We are faced with another hitch to store abnormal records (which account for around 0.001% of the table - but are valid).
     
    There seems to be very little documentation around for this parameter - so I'm a little concerned about merrily tweaking it.  So my question is - is there any downside to increasing this parameter?
     
    Anyone have any experiences they could share - or point me at any "under the bonnet" articles?
     
    TIA
     
    Mark
     

  • May 12, 2004 at 2:01 pm

    #506204

    just the obvious . . . you're upping the potential impact on replication latency, network usage, differing datatypes (don't want to send a 3000 character text entry to a nvarchar(2000) column) . . .  one tip is to use the slow link profile if synchronization times out due to the increased data transferred.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply