What are the cons of have the distribution database on its own seperate
server from the publishers with regards to transactional replication ? I am
more concerned from a latency perspective ?

Would the changes be a bit slower to propagate to the subscriber as a result
of this ?

Let me know

Using SQL 2000.
Thanks

Its very slightly slower, but the network hop isn't really detectable. The
real problem is you have introduced a single point of failure and need to
cluster the distributor as if it goes down your tlog on your publisher can
get very large very quickly.

--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.

This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.

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]

Hassan,
in terms of overall latency, using a remote distributor will be lower (ie
faster from Pub -> Sub) when there are a lot of transactions. Have a look at
this article for some stats:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/tranrepl.mspx
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)