Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

Best one-way replication option going forward Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 6:32 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 132
I'm looking for some insight into implementing replication with a SQL 2005 Standard database based on our needs as well as the fact that one major replication type is deprecated in SQL 2012 and forward. To start off with, let me briefly describe what our replication needs are and what replication method I think is best for that... and why we don't want to use it. I'll also state that I have never dealt with SQL replication, so I'm learning as I go here.

We have a single SQL database server that drives all of our production data for our company. We are wanting to setup a second read-only database server that we replicate to to help load balance for some specific applications that will be fairly intense with the database. This second SQL server is always online, on the same network and as mentioned will be read only--no sending data back to the primary server. Updates need to happen as data changes on the primary server.

It seems fairly obvious to me that based on the above that we should use updatable subscriptions for transactional replication. However, this feature is deprecated in SQL 2012. Our IT manager wants to use something that's future proof, so she said out with this method. When we'll ever upgrade our SQL 2005 Standard installation, who knows. It could be many years. The only other real method that seems viable is merge replication. That isn't deprecated in SQL 2012. Peer-to-peer is what Microsoft seems to says is the replacement for updatable subscriptions for transactional replication, but we're not going to upgrade to enterprise for this feature.

My question is: what are the downsides for using merge replication for a scenario like the above where clearly it seems updatable subscriptions for transactional replication is better. Can we effectively make Merge Replication work in a similar fashion to updatable subscriptions for transactional replication and avoid updates being pushed to the publisher? Are there any performance issues to consider? ...or other caveats for that matter?

Thanks for any insights on the matter.
Post #1345896
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 12:37 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:15 PM
Points: 5,383, Visits: 7,454
Since you're doing a full database replication instead of selective, I'd actually recommend using mirror/snapshot. It's basically easy-mode transactional replication. Check it out; it's definately future proof as it's part of the HA-DR methodology SQL wants to implement.

A mighty quick walkthrough of how to do the setup:
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/archive/2007/02/13/60091.aspx



- Craig Farrell

Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

For better assistance in answering your questions | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions. |Tally Tables

Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
Post #1346183
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:44 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 132
Interesting--I had not really looked at or considered that option. I'll have to dig around for some more extensive information and howtos on doing this. The link you gave seems to indicate the mirrored DB wouldn't be usable because of being set to norecovery, but it just looks like I have to find the right setup with snapshots to get what I need.

Thanks--this gives me a new rabbit trail to go down.

EDIT: It looks like this option is out. Snapshots aren't a feature of SQL 2005 Standard edition. We won't be dropping the money on Enterprise--that I know.
Post #1346248
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:56 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:15 PM
Points: 5,383, Visits: 7,454
ESpigle (8/16/2012)
Interesting--I had not really looked at or considered that option. I'll have to dig around for some more extensive information and howtos on doing this. The link you gave seems to indicate the mirrored DB wouldn't be usable because of being set to norecovery, but it just looks like I have to find the right setup with snapshots to get what I need.

Thanks--this gives me a new rabbit trail to go down.

EDIT: It looks like this option is out. Snapshots aren't a feature of SQL 2005 Standard edition. We won't be dropping the money on Enterprise--that I know.


My pleasure and dead on target. The mirror isn't directly usable. What you do is snapshot it at certain time periods to 'upkeep' it. Snapshots are usually pretty quick. If you want to get particularly fancy you setup a full warehouse alongside the mirror/snapshot setup. Every x period your updater runs, creates a new snapshot, evaluates the delta, and includes it into the reporting warehouse without user interuption.

... and I just caught your edit. Well, that sucks. Um, hrm. Log shipping then?

EDIT: Btw, I'd avoid merge replication like the plague. If you NEED merge, it's the only way to go, but it's such a PITA that I'd avoid it unless absolutely necessary.



- Craig Farrell

Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

For better assistance in answering your questions | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions. |Tally Tables

Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
Post #1346255
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:05 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 132
Evil Kraig F (8/16/2012)
EDIT: Btw, I'd avoid merge replication like the plague. If you NEED merge, it's the only way to go, but it's such a PITA that I'd avoid it unless absolutely necessary.


We don't really need it, per se. It was just one of the options we saw that was not being done away with for future SQL versions. Already with just some initial testing I can see we're going to have many roadblocks just to make it work base on various things with the database structure and setup.
Post #1346261
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:16 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:15 PM
Points: 5,383, Visits: 7,454
How up to date does the copy need to be kept? Snapshot replication isn't going anywhere anytime soon as far as I know, and should work in standard.

... which, at that point, you might just look into backup/restores to the other server. Sorry, scrap that. Not that it's a bad idea (testing your restores is always good), just probably too much downtime if you aren't looking for 'one day behind' upkeep.



- Craig Farrell

Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

For better assistance in answering your questions | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions. |Tally Tables

Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
Post #1346265
Posted Friday, August 17, 2012 12:34 AM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:07 PM
Points: 286, Visits: 578
ESpigle (8/16/2012)
We are wanting to setup a second read-only database server that we replicate to to help load balance for some specific applications that will be fairly intense with the database. This second SQL server is always online, on the same network and as mentioned will be read only--no sending data back to the primary server. Updates need to happen as data changes on the primary server.


Reading your initial requirements I'm not sure why you need to configure transactional replication with updateable subscriptions. You have said that your replicated database will be read-only, so surely no need for an updateable subscription?


Clare
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Measure twice; cut once (and have a good saw)

Hey, just a thought.....did you check Books Online yet?
Post #1346350
Posted Friday, August 17, 2012 7:25 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 132
I'm still trying to get a grasp on all the ways to get data from one server to be matched on another for application load balancing, so what you say may be entirely true. I'm at the learning about the various ways to accomplish this stage, so I've definitely not settled on one way while I'm trying to figure out how it all works. I'm still researching my options that are available for a SQL 2005 Standard setup.
Post #1346537
Posted Friday, August 17, 2012 10:05 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:47 PM
Points: 35,215, Visits: 31,667
I don't know the details of how it all works but we use SAN replication on a realtime basis to send transactions to our DR site. It's awfully fast and requires nothing of the SQL server.

--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1346803
Posted Friday, August 17, 2012 11:46 PM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:07 PM
Points: 286, Visits: 578
Do you actually have the replicated DB online Jeff? I've used a couple of flavours of SAN replication but the database is not actually mounted at the other end

Clare
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Measure twice; cut once (and have a good saw)

Hey, just a thought.....did you check Books Online yet?
Post #1346811
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse