February 27, 2002 at 6:55 pm
I hope to create a 'recovery' server for a critical web application. I am tempted to set up replication, but realize this task could also be done by a scheduled DTS job, which may be much simpler. I have read up on replication and have some reservations about it. A little about the environment: Data does not change very rapidly. Some days maybe no edits, some days maybe changes to 100 rows. The environment is stable, there are few DDL changes....development is essentially over. This system has 10 databases which it uses. Hence, all would need either replication or DTS Transfers. Intended publishing & subscribing servers are on same domain. Both are production servers. I Believe either Snapshot or Transactional would meet our needs if we replicate. There is no user need for replicated data. This is SOLELY a Disaster Recovery motivated situation. Reservations about replication include the hassles with identity columns, the hassles with Subscriber Databases being left in 'Read Only' mode (thereby slowing & complicating the recovery process), the difficulty in cleaning up a server after replication is halted if we abandon replication. My gut feeling is DTS might be best. There are 10 Databases. Sizes (inaccurately) reported are 5 at less than 5 MB, others at the following sizes: 10 mb, 24 mb, 26 mb, 39 mb and one big one: 3000 mb (3 gb). Latency is not a big issue. If these were DTS'd nightly that would be fine. Transactional Replication would be slightly better, but the amount of data change is not high. I would solicit anybody's input on this. Thanks,
February 27, 2002 at 9:17 pm
I'd go with transactional. Easy enough to send over a new snapshot at any time if you run into problems. Less work than DTS. I've used replication for a while, have had very few problems, usually related to something external to replication.
Andy
February 27, 2002 at 10:57 pm
Will logshipping help you...
Jesus My Saviour
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply