"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Hi Timi,
> I'm not too sure what you mean by "multi-master" in your description - merge
> operates with a publisher-subscriber setup (although alternative sync
> partners cloud the issue slightly) and presumably the active/active cluster
> represents the publisher with the subscriber being at a remote site. I
> haven't set up the configuration you mention, but I see some issues. The
> load balancing will need to be done by a middle-tier (ie not out of the box)
> and this is fine, but what I would be concerned about is the conflict
> resolution. Do you intend to partition the data accross the 2 merge
> replicated databases and have the load-balancer determine which partition is
> accessed? If not there will be a strong possibility of conflicting updates.
> If this is allowed in the business model then it sounds fine.
> Latency/performance in your setup will depend on many factors and I would
> recommend testing empirically. Apart from that I'd set up large ranges for
> the identity columns as per usual.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
>
>