August 25, 2005 at 6:39 am
Hi .... i Believe transactional replication also supports bi-directional data synchronisation, so does merge replication. I have a situation where adatabase schema has been scaled across two servers using a network load balancer. The need has arised for having the data redundant as well. My ta=ransactional volume is not too high, probably 5000-6000 data rows. The schema is not a relational schema. What do you think i shud use transactional or merge. Personally, i think i shud use merge as it is designed for two-way data sync. Also, transactional stops if a conflict occurs. would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Thanks
August 26, 2005 at 10:47 am
We use merge replication in a similar scenario, though we have many more transactions. It doesn't scale well to our size, about 300 GB of data/indexes. But for smaller situations it shouldn't be a problem.
Since you have data that's separated, i.e. on one server but not replicated to another server, you'll want to scynchronize the two servers somehow. Look up sp_mergedummyupdate. If that's not necessary, all the better.
Good luck!
Dylan Peters
SQL Server DBA
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy