Database Mirroring or Log Shipping would be the best bet; however they
require 2 intances of 2005.
Transactional Replication sounds like it would be the best replication
solution for your instance, it makes a copy of the database(or initial
snapshot) at the subscriber, then replicates just the "transactions" to the
subscriber. But transaction replication does not allow for easy data
modification at the subscriber, where as Merge Replication does. So if you
only plan to modify data at the publisher then transaction would be best for
you. Hope this helps.
[quoted text, click to view] "Bob" wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> We have a full SQL server that has been running for many years now, we
> are getting ready to add a new SQL server and would like to be able to
> replicate the information from the old one to the new one. And then
> use the old one as a warm-backup
>
> I know there are 3 types of replication, I know I don't want to do
> snapshot, but I don't know the major difference between Transactional
> and Merge, I would like to keep my 2 databases in as close of a sync
> as possible, without loosing alot in the lag.
>
> If someone could help me configure this it would be great
>
use bi-directional transactional replication or log shipping for something
like this. bi-directional transactional replication will have a lower
latency that log shipping but it is more complex to set up.
--
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] "Bob" <bpaul833@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183751021.329221.202990@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Good afternoon,
>
> We have a full SQL server that has been running for many years now, we
> are getting ready to add a new SQL server and would like to be able to
> replicate the information from the old one to the new one. And then
> use the old one as a warm-backup
>
> I know there are 3 types of replication, I know I don't want to do
> snapshot, but I don't know the major difference between Transactional
> and Merge, I would like to keep my 2 databases in as close of a sync
> as possible, without loosing alot in the lag.
>
> If someone could help me configure this it would be great
>
You can log ship databases on the same server, or between two different
servers as long as they are the same version. Log shipping has been
available since the earliest version of SQL Server, but you have to roll it
yourself. The wizard ships in all versions of SQL Server 2005 (above
Express), and is present in the EE version of SQL 2000.
--
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] "Jason Shehane" <JasonShehane@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4ECD95ED-091A-45A9-B640-D0DA3F262F55@microsoft.com...
> Database Mirroring or Log Shipping would be the best bet; however they
> require 2 intances of 2005.
>
> Transactional Replication sounds like it would be the best replication
> solution for your instance, it makes a copy of the database(or initial
> snapshot) at the subscriber, then replicates just the "transactions" to
> the
> subscriber. But transaction replication does not allow for easy data
> modification at the subscriber, where as Merge Replication does. So if
> you
> only plan to modify data at the publisher then transaction would be best
> for
> you. Hope this helps.
>
> "Bob" wrote:
>
>> Good afternoon,
>>
>> We have a full SQL server that has been running for many years now, we
>> are getting ready to add a new SQL server and would like to be able to
>> replicate the information from the old one to the new one. And then
>> use the old one as a warm-backup
>>
>> I know there are 3 types of replication, I know I don't want to do
>> snapshot, but I don't know the major difference between Transactional
>> and Merge, I would like to keep my 2 databases in as close of a sync
>> as possible, without loosing alot in the lag.
>>
>> If someone could help me configure this it would be great
>>
>>
