Showing posts with label located. Show all posts
Showing posts with label located. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Replication between different subnets
I was wondering if it was possible to set up transactional replication between SQL servers located on differenet subnets? Thanks for your help!You could do this even through internet - you just need to know IP and account.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Replication and secure off-site servers
FYI - I know basically next to nothing about replication.
We have production servers that are located in a secure location entirely
separate from our own location and networkd. We want to set up a hot-copy
that is, at most, a few minutes behind production but that would be located
in our own office, on our own network. Any clues as to whether this is
possible using SQL Server replication or would we need to consider a third
party solution, such as that offered by DataMirror?
Thanks,
Michael MacGregor
Database Architect
Michael,
some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To keep
the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as not
all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and by
default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued updating
subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not having
the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other objects
being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take all
the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but in
my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect this
might be the best option for your case.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||How does that work when there is a firewall between the Production server
and the hot-copy?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Michael,
> some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To keep
> the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as
not
> all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and by
> default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued
updating
> subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not having
> the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other objects
> being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take all
> the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but in
> my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect
this
> might be the best option for your case.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Hello Michael,
It is suggested that you create a VPN connection to the remote network so
that publisher/subscriber are virtually in the same network. You may want
to adjust the repliciation agent profile parameters so that it can work
properly on a low bandwidth.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Michael MacGregor" <nospam@.nospam.com>
| References: <OTScNXaoFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Replication and secure off-site servers
| Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:53:49 -0400
| Lines: 27
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
| Message-ID: <O37aunboFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.84.116.206.in-addr.arpa.salesdriver.com
206.116.84.10
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP10.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication:15827
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
|
| How does that work when there is a firewall between the Production server
| and the hot-copy?
|
| "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
| news:ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > Michael,
| > some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To
keep
| > the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as
| not
| > all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and
by
| > default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued
| updating
| > subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not
having
| > the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other
objects
| > being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take
all
| > the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but
in
| > my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect
| this
| > might be the best option for your case.
| > Cheers,
| > Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
| > (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
| > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
| >
| >
|
|
|
|||Michael,
I agree with Peter's advice re VPN, but if this is not possible, port 1433
(or whatever your sql port is) will need to be opened, as well as your FTP
port. This can still be locked down by restricting access to certain IP
address subscribers.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||In SQL 2005, are the replication processes improved, are there better
interfaces, etc., compared to SQL 2000/
Michael MacGregor
Database Architect
|||Hello Michael,
As I know, there are some improvments in replication in such as management,
performance, monitor etc. I suggest that you go to SQL 2005 beta newsgroup
for more details about this.
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...lserver2005&sl
cid=us
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Michael MacGregor" <nospam@.nospam.com>
| References: <OTScNXaoFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<O37aunboFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<zGjivHioFHA.940@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>
<#x61AvjoFHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Replication and secure off-site servers
| Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:44:49 -0400
| Lines: 7
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
| Message-ID: <#y5qXyMpFHA.3536@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.84.116.206.in-addr.arpa.salesdriver.com
206.116.84.10
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP15.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication:15951
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
|
| In SQL 2005, are the replication processes improved, are there better
| interfaces, etc., compared to SQL 2000/
|
| Michael MacGregor
| Database Architect
|
|
|
|||Michael,
I haven't done any performance measurements yet so can't really compare this
side of things.
From the interface point of view, the basic functionality is enhanced (eg
Hostname as a subscription property in Merge, tracer tokens exist in
Transactional), there are a few completely new areas (eg Oracle -> SQL,
Merge over HTTP) and GUIwise, the Replication Monitor is now isolated as a
separate application. I've written a few basic articles on
www.replicationanswers.com on a few of these.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
We have production servers that are located in a secure location entirely
separate from our own location and networkd. We want to set up a hot-copy
that is, at most, a few minutes behind production but that would be located
in our own office, on our own network. Any clues as to whether this is
possible using SQL Server replication or would we need to consider a third
party solution, such as that offered by DataMirror?
Thanks,
Michael MacGregor
Database Architect
Michael,
some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To keep
the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as not
all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and by
default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued updating
subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not having
the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other objects
being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take all
the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but in
my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect this
might be the best option for your case.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||How does that work when there is a firewall between the Production server
and the hot-copy?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Michael,
> some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To keep
> the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as
not
> all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and by
> default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued
updating
> subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not having
> the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other objects
> being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take all
> the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but in
> my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect
this
> might be the best option for your case.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Hello Michael,
It is suggested that you create a VPN connection to the remote network so
that publisher/subscriber are virtually in the same network. You may want
to adjust the repliciation agent profile parameters so that it can work
properly on a low bandwidth.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Michael MacGregor" <nospam@.nospam.com>
| References: <OTScNXaoFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Replication and secure off-site servers
| Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:53:49 -0400
| Lines: 27
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
| Message-ID: <O37aunboFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.84.116.206.in-addr.arpa.salesdriver.com
206.116.84.10
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP10.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication:15827
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
|
| How does that work when there is a firewall between the Production server
| and the hot-copy?
|
| "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
| news:ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > Michael,
| > some people have used transactional replication for this purposes. To
keep
| > the 2 systems entirely in sync will require careful planning though, as
| not
| > all objects can be replicated - eg permissions, users and indexes, and
by
| > default you'll lose identity attributes. Certainly I can see queued
| updating
| > subscribers being used in this way, which avoids the issues of not
having
| > the identity columns, but it still leaves the matter of the other
objects
| > being manually synchronized. Log shipping on the other hand will take
all
| > the extra objects. In theory the log could be shipped once a minute but
in
| > my experience you'll be pushing it to get a very low latency. I suspect
| this
| > might be the best option for your case.
| > Cheers,
| > Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
| > (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
| > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
| >
| >
|
|
|
|||Michael,
I agree with Peter's advice re VPN, but if this is not possible, port 1433
(or whatever your sql port is) will need to be opened, as well as your FTP
port. This can still be locked down by restricting access to certain IP
address subscribers.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||In SQL 2005, are the replication processes improved, are there better
interfaces, etc., compared to SQL 2000/
Michael MacGregor
Database Architect
|||Hello Michael,
As I know, there are some improvments in replication in such as management,
performance, monitor etc. I suggest that you go to SQL 2005 beta newsgroup
for more details about this.
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...lserver2005&sl
cid=us
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Michael MacGregor" <nospam@.nospam.com>
| References: <OTScNXaoFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<ekPb3DboFHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<O37aunboFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<zGjivHioFHA.940@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>
<#x61AvjoFHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Replication and secure off-site servers
| Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:44:49 -0400
| Lines: 7
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
| Message-ID: <#y5qXyMpFHA.3536@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.84.116.206.in-addr.arpa.salesdriver.com
206.116.84.10
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP15.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication:15951
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
|
| In SQL 2005, are the replication processes improved, are there better
| interfaces, etc., compared to SQL 2000/
|
| Michael MacGregor
| Database Architect
|
|
|
|||Michael,
I haven't done any performance measurements yet so can't really compare this
side of things.
From the interface point of view, the basic functionality is enhanced (eg
Hostname as a subscription property in Merge, tracer tokens exist in
Transactional), there are a few completely new areas (eg Oracle -> SQL,
Merge over HTTP) and GUIwise, the Replication Monitor is now isolated as a
separate application. I've written a few basic articles on
www.replicationanswers.com on a few of these.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
Friday, March 9, 2012
Replication & NDF
If my replicating db has an .mdf/.ndf/.ldf, with some tables being located on the Secondary Data File, should I change the schema of the replicated database to match the replicating db?
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
JLS,
I'd say 'it depends'
Are you getting significant performance benefits by using filegroups? Do you need those same benefits on the subscriber? Do you have the corresponding disk setup on the subscriber? I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||" I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher."
Perfect, and exactly what I thought!!!! I knew this guy didn't have a clue as to what he was doing, and you just confirmed this for me. I read the exact same thing, and also hedged due to the fact that if the NDF becomes corrupt, the entire db is marked Suspect.....
Thanx once again Paul!
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:uwKaevZ2FHA.3964@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
JLS,
I'd say 'it depends' Are you getting significant performance benefits by using filegroups? Do you need those same benefits on the subscriber? Do you have the corresponding disk setup on the subscriber? I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||JLS,
there might be possibly another reason he used this setup. Do you use filegroup backups? I don't use them, but if the database is too large for a conventional backup strategy, filegroups are sometimes used.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
|||I would evaluate 1) whether the files are in their own file groups or a different file group
2) if so, are these files on the same logical/physical disk or are they on the same controller or are they all hanging off a san.
3) are the indexes or text or image data on these different files - there is a performance boost for doing this - and you can backup the image and text columns separate from the other file backups.
If they are on different files or different file groups is this to allow you to do file/filegroup level backups and do you need this?
If they are on different file groups and they are hanging off the same drive (logical or physical) or off the same controller or san there is no performance benefit to have them on different files, filegroups.
On SQL 7 there was a performance boost if you had multiple files in your filegroup. In SQL 2000 on win2k there could be in some situations - but this has gone away in win2003.
In short, I think the answer is no.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:et4WmgZ2FHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If my replicating db has an .mdf/.ndf/.ldf, with some tables being located on the Secondary Data File, should I change the schema of the replicated database to match the replicating db?
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
|||No, we do database backups using 3rd party tool, LiteSpeed.
So, I see no advantage to the .ndf & am planning to replicate without considering the .ndf
Thanx for your opinions & advice, I really appreciate it!!!!
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:OVvZ7ta2FHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
JLS,
there might be possibly another reason he used this setup. Do you use filegroup backups? I don't use them, but if the database is too large for a conventional backup strategy, filegroups are sometimes used.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
|||Short answer is what I thought you would say, Thanx!
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:OXFxh1c2FHA.3912@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I would evaluate 1) whether the files are in their own file groups or a different file group
2) if so, are these files on the same logical/physical disk or are they on the same controller or are they all hanging off a san.
3) are the indexes or text or image data on these different files - there is a performance boost for doing this - and you can backup the image and text columns separate from the other file backups.
If they are on different files or different file groups is this to allow you to do file/filegroup level backups and do you need this?
If they are on different file groups and they are hanging off the same drive (logical or physical) or off the same controller or san there is no performance benefit to have them on different files, filegroups.
On SQL 7 there was a performance boost if you had multiple files in your filegroup. In SQL 2000 on win2k there could be in some situations - but this has gone away in win2003.
In short, I think the answer is no.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:et4WmgZ2FHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If my replicating db has an .mdf/.ndf/.ldf, with some tables being located on the Secondary Data File, should I change the schema of the replicated database to match the replicating db?
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
JLS,
I'd say 'it depends'
Are you getting significant performance benefits by using filegroups? Do you need those same benefits on the subscriber? Do you have the corresponding disk setup on the subscriber? I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher.Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||" I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher."
Perfect, and exactly what I thought!!!! I knew this guy didn't have a clue as to what he was doing, and you just confirmed this for me. I read the exact same thing, and also hedged due to the fact that if the NDF becomes corrupt, the entire db is marked Suspect.....
Thanx once again Paul!
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:uwKaevZ2FHA.3964@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
JLS,
I'd say 'it depends'
Are you getting significant performance benefits by using filegroups? Do you need those same benefits on the subscriber? Do you have the corresponding disk setup on the subscriber? I'm assuming each filegroup is on a different disk here, otherwise I see no reason to have this setup even on the publisher.Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||JLS,
there might be possibly another reason he used this setup. Do you use filegroup backups? I don't use them, but if the database is too large for a conventional backup strategy, filegroups are sometimes used.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
|||I would evaluate 1) whether the files are in their own file groups or a different file group
2) if so, are these files on the same logical/physical disk or are they on the same controller or are they all hanging off a san.
3) are the indexes or text or image data on these different files - there is a performance boost for doing this - and you can backup the image and text columns separate from the other file backups.
If they are on different files or different file groups is this to allow you to do file/filegroup level backups and do you need this?
If they are on different file groups and they are hanging off the same drive (logical or physical) or off the same controller or san there is no performance benefit to have them on different files, filegroups.
On SQL 7 there was a performance boost if you had multiple files in your filegroup. In SQL 2000 on win2k there could be in some situations - but this has gone away in win2003.
In short, I think the answer is no.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:et4WmgZ2FHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If my replicating db has an .mdf/.ndf/.ldf, with some tables being located on the Secondary Data File, should I change the schema of the replicated database to match the replicating db?
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
|||No, we do database backups using 3rd party tool, LiteSpeed.
So, I see no advantage to the .ndf & am planning to replicate without considering the .ndf
Thanx for your opinions & advice, I really appreciate it!!!!
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:OVvZ7ta2FHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
JLS,
there might be possibly another reason he used this setup. Do you use filegroup backups? I don't use them, but if the database is too large for a conventional backup strategy, filegroups are sometimes used.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
|||Short answer is what I thought you would say, Thanx!
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:OXFxh1c2FHA.3912@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I would evaluate 1) whether the files are in their own file groups or a different file group
2) if so, are these files on the same logical/physical disk or are they on the same controller or are they all hanging off a san.
3) are the indexes or text or image data on these different files - there is a performance boost for doing this - and you can backup the image and text columns separate from the other file backups.
If they are on different files or different file groups is this to allow you to do file/filegroup level backups and do you need this?
If they are on different file groups and they are hanging off the same drive (logical or physical) or off the same controller or san there is no performance benefit to have them on different files, filegroups.
On SQL 7 there was a performance boost if you had multiple files in your filegroup. In SQL 2000 on win2k there could be in some situations - but this has gone away in win2003.
In short, I think the answer is no.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:et4WmgZ2FHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If my replicating db has an .mdf/.ndf/.ldf, with some tables being located on the Secondary Data File, should I change the schema of the replicated database to match the replicating db?
Does it matter? Would it be a 'best practice' to have both database schemas the same?
I didn't setup the .NDF, I basically inherited it from a third party software addition, who placed some of their tables on an .ndf.
I'm debating whether or not it matters in relation to replicating this database. What would you do?
Thanx for your opinion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)