April 30, 2013 at 6:39 am
Before I watched CBT Nuggets dicussing replication & mirroring. In it he described the following scenario (pictured below as I drew a diagram to help me understand his tongue twister.
http://www.pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=50377
Paraphrasing, he said: "If the principal is mirrored then in the case of a failover it will still continue as expected; going from the mirrored server (new principal) to the subscribers. However, if it is a subscriber that is mirrored & that becomes avaiable then that subscriber will no longer be reached."
This makes sense because it is sending to servers rather than cluster names. However, my question is (or rather seeking confirmation) this outcome detailed is only true when the replication uses the PUSH model. If the replication was done in a PULL model then opposite would occur (subscriber could no longer find the failed over publisher but a failed over subscriber would still locate the publisher just fine). Am I right in this assumption?
Dird
May 1, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Edit - removed answer after rereading the question.
May 14, 2013 at 10:18 am
With a remote distributor the subscription can be configured as either push or pull. For high availability of replication you wouldn't want the publisher acting as its own distributor.
Whether you have a push or pull subscription the distribution agent will not recognize the failed over subscription mirror. You would have to setup replication for the new subscriber but you could use the initialize from lsn option rather than creating a new snapshot or restoring from backup.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply