June 21, 2007 at 11:02 am
I have 3 databases. DB1 takes data from existing clients on an old front end. DB2 takes data from new clients on a new front end. DB3 is for reporting on these clients.
I have trialled this solution and it works fine with a handful of records...
Replicate DB1 to DB2, these same tables then replicate straight on from DB2 to DB3.
Reason being we want to keep DB2 up to date with the DB1 stuff ready for when we switch existing clients onto the new system.
Is this solution sound? Is replication ok operating like this? We will have hundreds of records coming in on DB1 and 2 each day.
cheers!
June 21, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Sounds resonable as long as it meets your needs and as long as the DB1 items are getting all the way thru to DB3. And as lonng as you have no need to show DB2 items on DB1 it sounds right.
June 22, 2007 at 4:50 am
Hi,
Just an extra note. We have a similar scenario. We are merge replicating between two databases that are both updated. One is then transactionally replicated to a third database for the purpose of calculations...works really well
Regards
Graeme
July 5, 2007 at 8:36 am
One thing I ran into, if you do a snap-shot from db1 to db2 and have it "Drop the existing table and re-create it" there is a problem. You cannot drop a table that is set-up for replication. Since the tables in db2 are set up to replicate to db3 they can not be dropped.
I got around it by setting up my db2 machine as the distributor and a subscriber and db3 subscribes from db2. It's a little tricky to set up but it works for me.
Steve
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply