Replication Cost

I know this question can depend on many things but I want
to get a rough estimate.
If I have 2 CPU with each 1 Ghz and 2GB of physical memory
on a server and I also have 3 Database with the size of
~10GB each. What could be my replication cost if I
replicate all 3 databases to another server in the
domain'. Currently, I am restoring my backups on the
second server in case if I loose my primary production
server. Since I have transaction log backups every hour, I
will be loosing last 1 hour of data if my primary server
crushes. I also have total of 300 user loging on and doing
transactions on the server.........
SQL Server 2K Std Edition, Windows 2K
Thanks for any suggestions.......You didn't mention anything about RAID, Mike, but if server isn't set up for RAID 5, it should be. I don't know the cost involved for your server, but my Compaq ML530 with all the bells and whistles (dual 1GB processors, array controller, drive cage, hot-pluggable 18.2GB drives, three power supplies, DLT drive, 2GB memory) cost about $18,000 about three years ago. I do remember that the array controller alone was about $1,800 because it went bad and had to be replaced. I don't recall the cost of the other items necessary for RAID 5 configuration, but it was in the neighborhood of $7,000. Of course, you could probably get all that for about half today
If you're look for a belt and suspenders approach, you could set up yuor current server as RAID 5, and then get another identical server and do some kind of disk mirroring between them. You'd have total redundancy without the need for replication or the overhead it requires, and if one server craps out the other could take over seemlessly
You should talk to your hardware people and see what's available
John|||Yes. We have the RAID5 and both servers are mirrored....
Thanks.
>--Original Message--
>You didn't mention anything about RAID, Mike, but if
server isn't set up for RAID 5, it should be. I don't know
the cost involved for your server, but my Compaq ML530
with all the bells and whistles (dual 1GB processors,
array controller, drive cage, hot-pluggable 18.2GB drives,
three power supplies, DLT drive, 2GB memory) cost about
$18,000 about three years ago. I do remember that the
array controller alone was about $1,800 because it went
bad and had to be replaced. I don't recall the cost of
the other items necessary for RAID 5 configuration, but it
was in the neighborhood of $7,000. Of course, you could
probably get all that for about half today.
>If you're look for a belt and suspenders approach, you
could set up yuor current server as RAID 5, and then get
another identical server and do some kind of disk
mirroring between them. You'd have total redundancy
without the need for replication or the overhead it
requires, and if one server craps out the other could take
over seemlessly.
>You should talk to your hardware people and see what's
available.
>John
>.
>

Replication / Restores and initialize schema question

I have a database with 3 added filegroups/files. The restore with move,
moves the logical filename to a specifiic physical file.
Once restored the db objects should be restored to their proper filegroups.
Once I run the snapshot, can all of the schema and data be pushed to the
PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup?
Because this is what appears to be happening, all objects are being pushed
into the PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup.
In published db, objects are in their correct filegroups, in the subscriber
db, they are all in the PRIMARY/DEFAULT.
Does this sound right... I posted a database restore question to the server
ng. I'm wondering if replication could cause this.
This doesn't make any sense to me...
no, you will have to then apply your schema through a pre-snapshot command,
and ensure you use the delete existing data in the snapshot tab of the table
article properties.
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
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OwVk18MKFHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I have a database with 3 added filegroups/files. The restore with move,
> moves the logical filename to a specifiic physical file.
> Once restored the db objects should be restored to their proper
filegroups.
> Once I run the snapshot, can all of the schema and data be pushed to the
> PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup?
> Because this is what appears to be happening, all objects are being pushed
> into the PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup.
> In published db, objects are in their correct filegroups, in the
subscriber
> db, they are all in the PRIMARY/DEFAULT.
> Does this sound right... I posted a database restore question to the
server
> ng. I'm wondering if replication could cause this.
> This doesn't make any sense to me...
>
|||Then it sounds like replication is actually pushing the schema and data to
the PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup.
I'm still trying to understand why it does that?
Looking at the "delete existing data" selection - this appears to be per
table.
Is there a way to set this globally? I'd hate to select that for 700 tables
individually.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uo8FoNNKFHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> no, you will have to then apply your schema through a pre-snapshot
command,
> and ensure you use the delete existing data in the snapshot tab of the
table[vbcol=seagreen]
> article properties.
> --
> 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
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OwVk18MKFHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> filegroups.
pushed
> subscriber
> server
>
|||oops - should have looked further down - looks like I can set it globally in
"Article Defaults"
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:O9RjwUNKFHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Then it sounds like replication is actually pushing the schema and data to
> the PRIMARY/DEFAULT filegroup.
> I'm still trying to understand why it does that?
> Looking at the "delete existing data" selection - this appears to be per
> table.
> Is there a way to set this globally? I'd hate to select that for 700
tables[vbcol=seagreen]
> individually.
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uo8FoNNKFHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> command,
> table
move,[vbcol=seagreen]
the
> pushed
>