| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server replication : Transactional Replication under SQL 2000
replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I were to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is this
Thanks for your response. I will check out your book and I will watch your
webcast on the subject. One last question. We currently have SQL 2000. Is there any pressing need to upgrade to SQL 2005 to do transactional replication? Thanks again [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor and > subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and distributor > on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. > > -- > Hilary Cotter > Looking for a SQL Server replication book? > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html > > Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS > http://www.indexserverfaq.com > > "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... > > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about > > transactional > > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I > > were > > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the > > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is > > this > > correct? TIA > >
No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor and
subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and distributor on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. -- Hilary Cotter Looking for a SQL Server replication book? http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS http://www.indexserverfaq.com [quoted text, click to view] "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about > transactional > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I > were > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is > this > correct? TIA
Well that depends on your requirements. SQL 2005 is in some respects more
simple to deploy and has a lot of monitoring features. Its agents restart on failure. My impression is that people in general are dropping SQL 2000 and running to SQL 2005 ASAP. My book will help you with SQL 2000, but does not help very much with SQL 2005. -- Hilary Cotter Looking for a SQL Server replication book? http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS http://www.indexserverfaq.com [quoted text, click to view] "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4F59F1C0-D957-4D4A-ABA1-F593E5498F48@microsoft.com... > Thanks for your response. I will check out your book and I will watch your > webcast on the subject. One last question. We currently have SQL 2000. Is > there any pressing need to upgrade to SQL 2005 to do transactional > replication? Thanks again > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > >> No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor >> and >> subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and >> distributor >> on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. >> >> -- >> Hilary Cotter >> Looking for a SQL Server replication book? >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html >> >> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS >> http://www.indexserverfaq.com >> >> "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... >> > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about >> > transactional >> > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I >> > were >> > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the >> > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is >> > this >> > correct? TIA >> >> >>
Nothing "pressing". You get a lot of new functionality as well as
signficant performance benefits. The main reasons that I'm seeing my customers upgrading lots of replicated systems to 2005 are: 1. DDL replication 2. Dramatic reduction in errors that you really couldn't do anything about 3. Large performance gains -- Mike http://www.solidqualitylearning.com Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person or entity either by inference or direct reference. [quoted text, click to view] "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4F59F1C0-D957-4D4A-ABA1-F593E5498F48@microsoft.com... > Thanks for your response. I will check out your book and I will watch your > webcast on the subject. One last question. We currently have SQL 2000. Is > there any pressing need to upgrade to SQL 2005 to do transactional > replication? Thanks again > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > >> No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor >> and >> subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and >> distributor >> on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. >> >> -- >> Hilary Cotter >> Looking for a SQL Server replication book? >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html >> >> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS >> http://www.indexserverfaq.com >> >> "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... >> > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about >> > transactional >> > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I >> > were >> > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the >> > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is >> > this >> > correct? TIA >> >> >>
Thanks for your response. You have inspired me to investigate SQL 2005.
[quoted text, click to view] "Michael Hotek" wrote:
> Nothing "pressing". You get a lot of new functionality as well as > signficant performance benefits. The main reasons that I'm seeing my > customers upgrading lots of replicated systems to 2005 are: > 1. DDL replication > 2. Dramatic reduction in errors that you really couldn't do anything about > 3. Large performance gains > > -- > Mike > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com > Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole > views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person > or entity either by inference or direct reference. > > "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:4F59F1C0-D957-4D4A-ABA1-F593E5498F48@microsoft.com... > > Thanks for your response. I will check out your book and I will watch your > > webcast on the subject. One last question. We currently have SQL 2000. Is > > there any pressing need to upgrade to SQL 2005 to do transactional > > replication? Thanks again > > > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > > > >> No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor > >> and > >> subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and > >> distributor > >> on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. > >> > >> -- > >> Hilary Cotter > >> Looking for a SQL Server replication book? > >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html > >> > >> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS > >> http://www.indexserverfaq.com > >> > >> "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... > >> > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about > >> > transactional > >> > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I > >> > were > >> > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the > >> > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is > >> > this > >> > correct? TIA > >> > >> > >> > >
Thanks for your response. I will take a look at SQL 2005
[quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Well that depends on your requirements. SQL 2005 is in some respects more > simple to deploy and has a lot of monitoring features. Its agents restart on > failure. > > My impression is that people in general are dropping SQL 2000 and running to > SQL 2005 ASAP. > > My book will help you with SQL 2000, but does not help very much with SQL > 2005. > > -- > Hilary Cotter > Looking for a SQL Server replication book? > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html > > Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS > http://www.indexserverfaq.com > > "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:4F59F1C0-D957-4D4A-ABA1-F593E5498F48@microsoft.com... > > Thanks for your response. I will check out your book and I will watch your > > webcast on the subject. One last question. We currently have SQL 2000. Is > > there any pressing need to upgrade to SQL 2005 to do transactional > > replication? Thanks again > > > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > > > >> No, you only need 1 server - this could be your publisher, distributor > >> and > >> subscriber. The most common deployment is with the publisher and > >> distributor > >> on the same server, but the subscriber being on a remote server. > >> > >> -- > >> Hilary Cotter > >> Looking for a SQL Server replication book? > >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html > >> > >> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS > >> http://www.indexserverfaq.com > >> > >> "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:0891CE5A-12C1-4FF8-B6CD-1585C3C1C2FD@microsoft.com... > >> > This should be an easy question. I just started reading about > >> > transactional > >> > replication and just wanted to make sure I understood the concept. If I > >> > were > >> > to employ this I would need 3 servers. The Publisher on 1 server, the > >> > distributor on another server and the subscriber on the 3 rd server. Is > >> > this > >> > correct? TIA > >> > >> > >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
April 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
October 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |