Post reply

replication

  • November 18, 2008 at 6:23 am

    #202952

    Hi, all,

    I created a snapshot replication of a database sometime ago. I now would like use the replicated data (on the subscriber) as a stand alone database. What will happen if disable the replication? Will the replicated data on the subscriber stand independently?

    Thanks indeed for your hint

    Niyala

  • November 18, 2008 at 8:01 am

    #899942

    Hi,

    Yes it will. I have never really used Snapshot replication as such, but I would assume the subscriber is relatively free of "junk" left by the replication once you have removed the Subscription.

    /Elisabeth

    elisabeth@sqlserverland.com
    MCITP | MCT
    http://sqlblog.com/blogs/elisabeth_redei/
    http://linkedin.com/in/elisabethredei

  • November 18, 2008 at 8:33 am

    #899966

    Thanks indeed.

    you mentioned that you never used snapshot. Do you have a better suggestion than using snapshot? I checked out for transactional and merge replications, too. However, I took the snapshot just for its simplicity.

    I appreciate your comments.

    Niyala

  • November 19, 2008 at 3:38 am

    #900407

    It depends on your requirements. If you need to ensure that there is minimal latency between the time that your publication database is updated to the subscription database receiving the updated data, then transactional replication is the way to go. If you need your subscriber to write data back to the publisher, then merge publication is what you need.

    But you're talking about disabling replication, in which case I wouldn't worry about the above unless you want to investigate how you can use replication in future (just do investigations on a test system though!). 😉

  • November 19, 2008 at 7:49 am

    #900529

    Many thanks. Re disabling replication and using the replicated database, it works well according to my test.

    In relation to just replication, my problem is as follows:

    1. I have a database on SQL Server 2000 that I want to replicate on to a machine running SQL Server 2005. This should work well.

    2. I now have the databases (2000 and 2005) running parallel. After sometime, I would like to stop the SQL Server 2000 and continue working on SQL Server 2005.

    3. The database on SQL 2000 is modified daily. So is the database on SQL 2005. And yet, at the end I would like to have the database on 2005 to contain everything that was in 2000 database. That means the database in 2005 should contain modifications made to it as well as all items (new as well as old) in the 2000 Database.

    I am not really sure if my question is clear. One of my client explained it this way. However, I was wondering if anyone had such experience and how the problem was solved.

    Thanks for your clues.

    Regards

    Niyala

  • November 23, 2008 at 2:19 am

    #902152

    Hi,

    Should the changes that are made on 2005 be replicated to the 2000 as well? If so you need to setup Transactional publication with updatable subscriptions.

    If not, just set up the replication for oneway replication and pay attention to the Identity Management (so that you do not end up using the same ranges of Identity values at the Subscriber as you are using on the Publisher.

    Also, in the Article properties, under Destination Object, make sure you choose the rigth "Action if name is in use" so you don't accidently drop objects in the SQL Server 2005 database.

    /Elisabeth

    elisabeth@sqlserverland.com
    MCITP | MCT
    http://sqlblog.com/blogs/elisabeth_redei/
    http://linkedin.com/in/elisabethredei

  • November 24, 2008 at 12:38 am

    #902299

    Thank you very much for your useful hint.

    Regards

    Niyala

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply