August 5, 2010 at 10:44 am
Currently we have a sql server 2005 server hosted at location1 and is used by a client server application consisting of 200+ users, possibly 100 concurrent. The database consists of sales data and is about 30GB.
At location2, we have a website consisting of 60 users, possibly 20 concurrent that connects to location1 sql server via T3.
Location2 is too slow and we are looking into replication but cannot determine which type would be best.
If we would use merge replication, how much would the performance be degraded on the server at location1?
August 6, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Merge or transactional, both will have issues if your latency is high. There is not much performance impact by having any kind of replication if you have the distributor on a different server.
If you are going to use Location2 as read only, I do not see any reason why you would need Merge replication. Just a simple Transactional replication is the best bet. The replication will not have much impact on the performance because the changes are read from the log.
just my 2 cents
-Roy
August 9, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I'd recommend trans rep rather than merge rep. As Roy said, is #2 is going to be read-only then you may as well do trans rep. It won't hurt #2's performance, which it sounds like you are having issues on that side anyway. Only thing with trans rep is that if people at location #2 are writing to the database, it has to be written to the source databases at location #1 so you don't break replication. Reads can be done from location #2 though.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply