"gigel" <gigel@chidu.net> wrote in message
news:eF1BN9yGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hello all,
>
> I am looking into setting up a bi-directional transactional replication
> environment
> as a high-availability solution.
>
> Is this a practical solution?
> Could I easily fail-over and fail-back? Manually won't be a problem.
> I need to be able to pull out the publisher or subscriber for applying os
> and/or sql patches.
>
> Experience, thoughts?
>
> Gigel
>

"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uiy1wa1GIHA.280@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> It may be practical but it has some limitations.
>
> 1) latency can be all over the place - generally it is low, but large
> batch operations or replicating text can create latencies exceeding that
> of log shipping.
> 2) it is not resilient to schema changes, you have to tear everything down
> and then recreate it when you are done.
> 3) you have to do a lot of work to set it up.
> 4) there is no automatic failover
> 5) most other standby solutions do not require you to have licensing in
> place for the standby server - with replication you do.
>
> Failover and fail back are simple.
>
> You do not need to break your topology for patches.
> --
> 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
>
> "gigel" <gigel@chidu.net> wrote in message
> news:eF1BN9yGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I am looking into setting up a bi-directional transactional replication
>> environment
>> as a high-availability solution.
>>
>> Is this a practical solution?
>> Could I easily fail-over and fail-back? Manually won't be a problem.
>> I need to be able to pull out the publisher or subscriber for applying os
>> and/or sql patches.
>>
>> Experience, thoughts?
>>
>> Gigel
>>
>
>

"gigel" <gigel@chidu.net> wrote in message
news:eaJnoU8GIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks a lot for your reply Hilary.
>
> # 2 and 3 are a bit concerning, What other solutions do you have in mind?
> Log shipping? Clustering?
>
> Clustering is very stable once it's up and running but I find it very hard
> to update/upgrade. I feel like a need a second
> cluster when I have to apply sql service packs.
>
> btw, great book on sql 2k replication. Are you going to revise it for sql
> 2k5?
>
> Gigel
>
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uiy1wa1GIHA.280@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> It may be practical but it has some limitations.
>>
>> 1) latency can be all over the place - generally it is low, but large
>> batch operations or replicating text can create latencies exceeding that
>> of log shipping.
>> 2) it is not resilient to schema changes, you have to tear everything
>> down and then recreate it when you are done.
>> 3) you have to do a lot of work to set it up.
>> 4) there is no automatic failover
>> 5) most other standby solutions do not require you to have licensing in
>> place for the standby server - with replication you do.
>>
>> Failover and fail back are simple.
>>
>> You do not need to break your topology for patches.
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> "gigel" <gigel@chidu.net> wrote in message
>> news:eF1BN9yGIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I am looking into setting up a bi-directional transactional replication
>>> environment
>>> as a high-availability solution.
>>>
>>> Is this a practical solution?
>>> Could I easily fail-over and fail-back? Manually won't be a problem.
>>> I need to be able to pull out the publisher or subscriber for applying
>>> os and/or sql patches.
>>>
>>> Experience, thoughts?
>>>
>>> Gigel
>>>
>>
>>
>
>