Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18

    Unanswered: MSSQL Replication

    Our existing SQL Server is experiencing some troubles and we would like to replace it with new hardware. Of course a migration will be in order to move off of this hardware and onto the new.

    To better protect our business critical needs we have decided to implement SQL Server Replication. The SQL Server is what helps drive our everyday business. Without it, we are "dead in the water"! The other day, we lost approximately 10 hours of productivity until SQL Services could be restored.

    My question is, if it would be wise to have yet a 3rd server used as a Distributor for Replication or if it would be okay to have the Distributor and Publisher on the same server?

    I am concerned that there may be performance problems if we place the two roles on the same machine event though the hardware is very good. Below is the important server configuration.

    Windows 2003 Standard Edition
    SQL Server Standard Edition
    Dual 2.4Ghz with HyperThreading
    2GB of RAM
    RAID5 for MDF Files
    RAID1 for LDF Files

    Thank you all for your responses and suggestions.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,662
    It's always recommended by MS to consider having a server per role. In addition you may want to set up Alternate location and file compression, which will lower network activity caused by replication process.
    "The data in a record depends on the Key to the record, the Whole Key, and
    nothing but the Key, so help me Codd."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18
    I found an aritcle that outlines some performance considerations. I think it is exactly what I am looking for.

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../tranrepl.mspx

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •