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 1234»»»

The Brittleness of Replication Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, August 11, 2014 8:13 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Brittleness of Replication






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1602128
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:21 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:58 AM
Points: 5,819, Visits: 3,739
From the perspective of a developer who occasionally delves into SQL Server I can see that there is a benefit to the stagnant nature of software i.e. I come back after a couple of years with no real SQL Server interaction and most is still familiar.

I am not convinced though that this benefit cannot be realised if the product was no longer stagnant. If the UI remained as slow moving as before but the features were tidied up then it would sometimes require zero changes in the UI (I am including command line etc. here), sometimes a few small ones and occasionally an overhaul. Most people can live with this especially when considering the benefits.

Backward compatibility is already managed on a compatibility level for the SQL Database Engine. Is it time that each subsystem has a different compatibility level? Should we be looking to allow more changes to eventually break backwards compatibility? These changes are not made lightly so should we consider them permanent breaking changes after a particular advertised time span? Do we need something akin to the product support lifecycle for features?


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1602172
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:08 AM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
I'm not looking to break backwards compatibility. I just want improvements and things fixed that don't work well. There's no shortage of those. In replication, tooling has barely advanced, and robustness-wise, it's barely moved. Certainly in other areas tooling could be improved.

However let me also comment on Oracle. They are very backwards compatible. They also suffer security issues because of this. I'm not sure I want complete backwards compatibility. In fact, I like the move from mirroring to AO/AG. While I like mirroring and I think AO/AGs need some work, I am also glad they didn't try to retrofit this and made a new technology.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1602334
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:31 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:38 PM
Points: 1, Visits: 163
Your post came just as I was initializing a replication subscription that has mysteriously been marked inactive and needed to be reinitialized. My company uses replication from servers in remote locations with limited connectivity so when it breaks it is a long process to get is working again. Fortunately this is not a frequent occurrence and the product works as advertised with just a few 'mysterious' events. I have not found a better product for data exporting with a usable user interface that I can get setup within an hour of getting the request. CDC is rather more complicated that I need as is Service Broker which I have used for other projects. I'll continue to use Replication and hope for less 'brittleness' in future upgrades.
Post #1602348
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:28 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:07 PM
Points: 180, Visits: 1,895
I'm always surprised when people don't use replication, especially with reporting problems. Real time data is very often over rated outside of financial markets.
Post #1602386
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:29 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:58 AM
Points: 6, Visits: 89
"Brittleness of Replication" is the best way I've heard of to describe that feature.

Replication is awesome when it works but there seems to be no end of weird circumstances that can bring it crashing down. So much so that in our shop, we have a No-New-Replication policy. We have a lot of replication already and fixing the frequent problems takes way too much of my team's time.

Replication has definitely improved over the years but it is still not robust enough to do the self-healing it should do.
Post #1602387
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:12 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 12, 2014 9:23 AM
Points: 206, Visits: 402
Love "Brittleness of Replication"

With Cassandra, peer to peer replication is a big selling point. And Hadoop has distributing computing. MSSS has had peer to peer replication for quite a long time, but has it advanced?
If they had invested on making peer to peer in sql server solid, it would give it a multi-site HA, DR and scale-out strategy position. No, they follow the cluster approach, and even deprecate mirroring. We can only guess what it would have been.


The more you are prepared, the less you need it.
Post #1602435
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:07 PM


SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:36 PM
Points: 37, Visits: 794
I know this really old guy who once said that replication is only as reliable as the network and hardware it runs on.
Post #1602460
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:16 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:20 AM
Points: 2,923, Visits: 1,874
No, they follow the cluster approach, and even deprecate mirroring. We can only guess what it would have been.


It seems to have turned into Always-on availability groups.


LinkedIn Profile
Newbie on www.simple-talk.com
Post #1602497
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:17 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:20 AM
Points: 2,923, Visits: 1,874
What about full text search. It could have been good but the Solr/ElasticSearch horse has well and truly bolted.

LinkedIn Profile
Newbie on www.simple-talk.com
Post #1602498
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse