December 5, 2007 at 8:05 am
HI SQL gurus,
I am a newbie, I am facing a challenging situation for a client.
This client has 30 branches, initially we thought of merge replication between HQ and 30 branches, however the main problem is WAN link is abrupt with no guarantee.
So we have a assumed design, please give us your expert opinion:
We want to replicate from HQ Server to 30 branche servers every day evening. All the 30 branches will be directly inputing to the HQ server during working hours. In case the WAN link goes down we need the affected branch to input the transaction to local server.
How do I convert the local server to read/write SQL server?
How do I send the transactions which happened during the period when the WAN link was down to HQ server once the WAN link is up?
How do I make the local server get updates from the HQ server again?
Lastly is this design correct or not possible?
Please help
Thanks in advance
SV
December 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Hi Sunilv,
Looking at your post, I think merge replication is the only option, because you want the subscribers to be able to enter data locally and then have that data sent to the HQ and merge into the main database
Merge replication is very good with dodgey comms links. If it goes down during a replication job, then the job retries a defined number of times before failing. The next time the merge job runs it picks up where it left off (pretty much).
Regards
Neil
December 10, 2007 at 5:52 am
Hi,
Try transactional replication with updatable subscriptions. Check in both immediate and queued updates during creation so in case of a connectivity issue branches can use their local data. In this scenario branch offices should update their own copy of data and it will be populated to the central server.
Anyway, of course the whole disconnected office stuff will work only if the branches use distinct set of data.
Let me know if it's not clear. 🙂
-- Erik http://blog.rollback.hu
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply