Is SQL Server Replication going away?

Question

Is SQL Server Replication going away?

DentalDBA

Old Hand

Points: 379
More actions
August 18, 2016 at 12:57 pm

#316315

Does anyone know if Microsoft is thinking about doing away or not supporting database replication in the future? Do they have other ways to copy transaction changes?
Thanks

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

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

Alan Burstein SSC Guru Points: 61141 More actions · Answer 1

DentalDBA (8/18/2016)
Does anyone know if Microsoft is thinking about doing away or not supporting database replication in the future? Do they have other ways to copy transaction changes?
Thanks

I have not heard anything about Microsoft doing away with replication. It is interesting to note that there haven't been any real changes to Replication in SQL Server since the release of 2012.

The one alternative to replication would be synchronization using Microsoft Sync Framework but I don't know anything about it or anyone who is using it.

"I cant stress enough the importance of switching from a sequential files mindset to set-based thinking. After you make the switch, you can spend your time tuning and optimizing your queries instead of maintaining lengthy, poor-performing code."

-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001

pooyan_pdm Hall of Fame Points: 3007 More actions · Answer 2

Replication is a deprecated feature and Microsoft is not adding any thing new to it, MS recommendation is to use Always on Availability groups moving forward. The problem is Availability groups are not a true replacement for Replication for all the use cases. As an example unlike Replication, AG does not provide the option of having customized indexes on the replicas or the ability to be selective in terms of the data and the schema to be replicated. AG is a high availability and disaster recovery solution rather than a pure method of data replication and as a result Microsoft would not discontinue Replication anytime soon.

Pooyan

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 3

pooyan_pdm (8/18/2016)
Replication is a deprecated feature and Microsoft is not adding any thing new to it

Citation needed.

MSDN does not list replication as a deprecated feature. Please reference your source for replication being deprecated.

MS recommendation is to use Always on Availability groups moving forward.

AGs are not in any way a replacement for replication. They're a high availability feature. Replication is 'scale out', creating a read-write partial or complete copy of a database (transactional) or a multi-way sync of part or all of a DB (merge). AGs don't do any of that.

Please can you link the MS blog/article where they recommend using AGs over replication.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Thomas Rushton SSC-Insane Points: 22649 More actions · Answer 4

GilaMonster (8/19/2016)
pooyan_pdm (8/18/2016)
Replication is a deprecated feature and Microsoft is not adding any thing new to it
Citation needed.
MSDN does not list replication as a deprecated feature. Please reference your source for replication being deprecated.
MS recommendation is to use Always on Availability groups moving forward.
AGs are not in any way a replacement for replication. They're a high availability feature. Replication is 'scale out', creating a read-write partial or complete copy of a database (transactional) or a multi-way sync of part or all of a DB (merge). AGs don't do any of that.
Please can you link the MS blog/article where they recommend using AGs over replication.

A google search brings up this MSDN article https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143550.aspx in which they explain that SQL 2016 is deprecating replication with SQL 2008/SQL2008R2.

--edit-- this is not new behaviour. Reading back the notes for previous versions of SQL server (2014, 2012), they both have the same limit - won't replicate with version older than x-2.

So, as long as you keep your replication partners within two major versions, then all is fine.

Thomas Rushton
blog: https://thelonedba.wordpress.com

pooyan_pdm Hall of Fame Points: 3007 More actions · Answer 5

This is a gray area. Replication is deprecated and there's no true replacement for it at this time.

Not using Replication in future deployments is based on some of the MS internal materials I had access to when I was working as a MS PFE.

As I mentioned before AG is a HA/DR solution and not a true replacement for Replication but in some cases, AG could be used to provide another copy of data as a whole, it's faster and easier to manage compared to replication. There are several limitations as well, not being able to filter tables, column, rows, max of 8 secondary replicas, not having different schema on replicas(indexes as an example) and the limitations you also mentioned.

I personally try to stay a way of replication as much as I can.

Pooyan

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004307 More actions · Answer 6

pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
This is a gray area. Replication is deprecated and there's no true replacement for it at this time.
Not using Replication in future deployments is based on some of the MS internal materials I had access to when I was working as a MS PFE.
As I mentioned before AG is a HA/DR solution and not a true replacement for Replication but in some cases, AG could be used to provide another copy of data as a whole, it's faster and easier to manage compared to replication. There are several limitations as well, not being able to filter tables, column, rows, max of 8 secondary replicas, not having different schema on replicas(indexes as an example) and the limitations you also mentioned.
I personally try to stay a way of replication as much as I can.

Read the link that Thomas provided. [font="Arial Black"]Replication is NOT deprecated[/font]. Replication more than two versions back is what has been deprecated. And no... it's not a "gray area". The notice is VERY specific.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

pooyan_pdm Hall of Fame Points: 3007 More actions · Answer 7

there is difference between "deprecated" and "discontinued". Replication is still supported and not yet "discontinued" as there's no true replacement for it yet,but MS has not been adding anything to it or even improving this feature or encouraging this to be used in future deployments (another example is Mirroring which is still supported but a deprecated feature). This is a "deprecated" feature, as per Thomas's post it not possible to replicate between 2016 and 2008 R2 and is not completely supported between all different versions, that's why it is a grey area.

Pooyan

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004307 More actions · Answer 8

pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
there is difference between "deprecated" and "discontinued". Replication is still supported and not yet "discontinued" as there's no true replacement for it yet,but MS has not been adding anything to it or even improving this feature or encouraging this to be used in future deployments (another example is Mirroring which is still supported but a deprecated feature). This is a "deprecated" feature, as per Thomas's post it not possible to replicate between 2016 and 2008 R2 and is not completely supported between all different versions, that's why it is a grey area.

It's always been that way. Replication itself is NOT deprecated. The replication between versions older that two versions ago is what has been deprecated. Your original post made it sound like replication itself had been deprecated especially since you said there was no replacement for it yet, same as your post above.

If you have a link that says that replication itself has been deprecated (which means "going away in a future version), then please post the MS link that specifically says so.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 9

Jeff Moden (8/19/2016)
pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
This is a gray area. Replication is deprecated and there's no true replacement for it at this time.
Not using Replication in future deployments is based on some of the MS internal materials I had access to when I was working as a MS PFE.
As I mentioned before AG is a HA/DR solution and not a true replacement for Replication but in some cases, AG could be used to provide another copy of data as a whole, it's faster and easier to manage compared to replication. There are several limitations as well, not being able to filter tables, column, rows, max of 8 secondary replicas, not having different schema on replicas(indexes as an example) and the limitations you also mentioned.
I personally try to stay a way of replication as much as I can.
Read the link that Thomas provided. [font="Arial Black"]Replication is NOT deprecated[/font]. Replication more than two versions back is what has been deprecated. And no... it's not a "gray area". The notice is VERY specific.

I will have to disagree. From what I read, what is deprecated is replication with any version of SQL Server that is more than 2 major versions back. SQL Server 2014 would replicate back to SQL Server 2008, while SQL Server 2016 will only replicate back to SQL Server 2012.

This is much different than Replication itself being deprecated.

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125560 More actions · Answer 10

My 12 year old daughter will probably be posting the same question here a decade from now.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 11

pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
This is a "deprecated" feature, as per Thomas's post it not possible to replicate between 2016 and 2008 R2 and is not completely supported between all different versions, that's why it is a grey area.

That's not what Thomas's link says.

What is deprecated is replicating to 2008 or before, that's it. That's always been a limit to replication, you can't replicate more than two versions apart (eg 2000 to 2012, 2005 to 2014 or 2008/2008 R2 to 2016).

Replicating within the two version limit is still fully supported.

Please post your reference to replication itself, as a feature, being deprecated in its entiretly. Or, are you basing your statement on internal, NDA information?

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004307 More actions · Answer 12

Lynn Pettis (8/19/2016)
Jeff Moden (8/19/2016)
pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
This is a gray area. Replication is deprecated and there's no true replacement for it at this time.
Not using Replication in future deployments is based on some of the MS internal materials I had access to when I was working as a MS PFE.
As I mentioned before AG is a HA/DR solution and not a true replacement for Replication but in some cases, AG could be used to provide another copy of data as a whole, it's faster and easier to manage compared to replication. There are several limitations as well, not being able to filter tables, column, rows, max of 8 secondary replicas, not having different schema on replicas(indexes as an example) and the limitations you also mentioned.
I personally try to stay a way of replication as much as I can.
Read the link that Thomas provided. [font="Arial Black"]Replication is NOT deprecated[/font]. Replication more than two versions back is what has been deprecated. And no... it's not a "gray area". The notice is VERY specific.
I will have to disagree. From what I read, what is deprecated is replication with any version of SQL Server that is more than 2 major versions back. SQL Server 2014 would replicate back to SQL Server 2008, while SQL Server 2016 will only replicate back to SQL Server 2012.
This is much different than Replication itself being deprecated.

I'm not sure what you disagree with. That's what I said and that's what the "deprecation notice" from MS says. Two versions back and that's it. What you state above as examples are correct and they're all only two versions back.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 13

Jeff Moden (8/21/2016)
Lynn Pettis (8/19/2016)
Jeff Moden (8/19/2016)
pooyan_pdm (8/19/2016)
This is a gray area. Replication is deprecated and there's no true replacement for it at this time.
Not using Replication in future deployments is based on some of the MS internal materials I had access to when I was working as a MS PFE.
As I mentioned before AG is a HA/DR solution and not a true replacement for Replication but in some cases, AG could be used to provide another copy of data as a whole, it's faster and easier to manage compared to replication. There are several limitations as well, not being able to filter tables, column, rows, max of 8 secondary replicas, not having different schema on replicas(indexes as an example) and the limitations you also mentioned.
I personally try to stay a way of replication as much as I can.
Read the link that Thomas provided. [font="Arial Black"]Replication is NOT deprecated[/font]. Replication more than two versions back is what has been deprecated. And no... it's not a "gray area". The notice is VERY specific.
I will have to disagree. From what I read, what is deprecated is replication with any version of SQL Server that is more than 2 major versions back. SQL Server 2014 would replicate back to SQL Server 2008, while SQL Server 2016 will only replicate back to SQL Server 2012.
This is much different than Replication itself being deprecated.
I'm not sure what you disagree with. That's what I said and that's what the "deprecation notice" from MS says. Two versions back and that's it. What you state above as examples are correct and they're all only two versions back.

I may have been hit with the post bug, I wasn't disagreeing with you, Jeff, but the other guy.

Larry Henson SSC Rookie Points: 46 More actions · Answer 14

FWIW,

Microsoft had their "replication expert" on site for a few days about 6 months ago and she said it replication was being deprecated. She said some new version of always on was it's replacement. We went back and forth on that as it has a long way to go if that is the case. She said the needed changes wont make it in time for 2016 so time frame is unknown. She said at Microsoft it is a dead feature but they did fixes in 2012 and don't plan to touch it again. We have been on several calls since with issues and they have told us they don't plan to fix any of them so we have just worked around them.

I think she said with the new way the do releases and kill off features (forgot their term). It would be at least 3 editions from 2016. Unless they have a great replacement that is rock solid they may not have to make changes but they will have to keep it around. Sounds like what they are currently doing.

She has been there over 10 years if I recall but maybe it is all BS, but I don't think so.