Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
royv
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
455 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-08-15 : 14:47:08
|
| I have data that needs to replicated in real-time. My question is, when the data is being replicated, is that asynchronous with respect to the transaction that is happening? Here is what I am trying to do. I have a production machine with data that needs to be implemented real-time to a backup machine. Then I also need this backup machine to replicate data to a remote server located elsewhere. I have SQL Server 2000, does anyone have any suggestions on how to do this besides replication? Will replication be a good solution for this?*************************Someone done told you wrong! |
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-15 : 15:37:26
|
| For the "production to backup machine" issue, you might want to consider failover clustering. It's expensive, and not easy to setup, but it works REALLY well.For the remote server thing, you might want to look into something called "Log Shipping." I think that's the prefered way of doing such things, but I've done it before.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
 |
|
|
royv
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
455 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-15 : 15:53:16
|
| A failover cluster will not work, because I need to consider the situation where I lose my database. Data integrity is what I am concerned with, we actually already have the failover cluster in place in case of hardware failure. How about I implement replication to the backup server on the same network as the production server, and then log ship from this backup server to the remote server, does that sound good? Would this work in a real-time system? I need to minimize the effect of replication on the real-time transactions. I couldn't find anything in BOL about the specific question I had of replication being asynchronous to the transactions happening to the database?*************************Someone done told you wrong!Edited by - royv on 08/15/2002 16:22:36 |
|
|
|
Garth
SQLTeam Author
119 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-15 : 19:10:44
|
| Replication is not real-time, so I do not think it will work for this particular situation. In Transactional Replication, which I think gives you the closest thing to what you want, the data changes are read from the transaction log of the source database by the Log Reader Agent. I implemented continuous transactional replication once on two fairly powerful servers and the delay was still 1-2 seconds.I am curious to know if anyone else has experienced quicker results. |
|
|
|
royv
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
455 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-16 : 09:06:19
|
| Garth, let me give you a quick overview of our system and see if it compares to yours, I understand it won't be exact, but hopefully comparable. We have SQL Server 2000 on a dual Xeon 700MHz 2GB RAM with RAID 5. We have 2 tables that are hit in real-time out of approximately 100. If your system was comparable to this and the delay was 1-2 seconds, then I will not be able to use tranactional replication, it will be too much of a hit. Also since you mentioned the delay, I am assuming that replication is not asynchronous with respect to the transaction. Log shipping seems nice, however I don't think I would be able to implement that every 30 seconds or so.*************************Someone done told you wrong!Edited by - royv on 08/16/2002 09:07:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replication in real-time