May 17, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I have a very heterogeneous environment. I have SQL 2000 replicating to SQL 2005. I have SQL 2005 replicating to SQL 2000 and SQL 2008.
Occasionally we will get large spikes of data updates that really hammer our replication throughput, mostly on the distribution side. I have been reading that SQL 2008 improved replication throughput pretty impressively, so I wondered if moving to a remote SQL 2008 distributor would help. Since I can't force an upgrade everywhere to SQL 2008 as much as I would like to, this is the next best shot, but I can't seem to find info on whether the improvements in SQL 2008 replication will translate to improvements distributing frmo SQL 2008 to SQL 2005 and SQL 2000.
Anyone have any hard data on this?
May 18, 2011 at 9:41 am
I'm not sure that a remote distributor of any sql version will always give you better performance, it all depends upon the load(s) on the servers and essentially network bandwidth.
When I've been able I've always used a seperate distributor but more for an architectural reason than performance. A seperate distributor also needs licensing and you have the issue of what platform to put it on - if currently you're on a 16 core box what spec would you get for a standalone box?
I don't think it's as clear cut as that. As to your precise question - no never had reason to do that type of performance testing - I suspect you need a friendly microsoft person to answer your question.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply