Re: operating systems

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Hilary Cotter (hilary.cotter_at_gmail.com)
Date: 12/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:44:35 -0500

you do not have to have the same operating system. It is adviseable to use
NT server operating systems, ie NT 4., Win2k, and Win2003.

I think you can get away with using NT workstation, or XP professional but
there can be a connection limit you can bang into. 

-- 
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
Now available for purchase at:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"soc" <zxc0@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:egaFkBT4EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hilary,
> I will look into bi-directional tranasactional replication.
>
> -Presumably it would make sense to use w2003 on both machines?
> -Do the operating systems on 2 replicating machines have to be the
> same?
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> Thanks SOC.
>
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:O8z42MR4EHA.4092@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I would not use merge for this - I would use bi-directional transactional 
>>replication. This is ideal because your data is highly partitioned. 
>>Transactions occur on only one side at a time.
>>
>> Transactional replication is in general much faster than merge 
>> replication. Transactional replication is designed for server to server 
>> replication - whereas merge is designed for clients who often go offline. 
>> Merge replication adds a GUID column to each table you are replicating. 
>> Transactional requires a primary key on each table.
>>
>> Merge replication can be more difficult to trouble shoot than 
>> transactional. Merge also requires (in general) more processing than 
>> transactional.
>>
>> This is not to say of course that merge is always less performant than 
>> transactional or slower than transactional.  If you have a solution where 
>> there are heavy updates, the servers are not connected for significant 
>> lengths of time, and transactions originate on one server - merge is 
>> faster and performs better.  Consider a stock market application where 1) 
>> the majority of the transactions are updates 2) the servers connect once 
>> a day 3) the transactions all occur on the publisher - in this case merge 
>> performs way better than tranny.
>>
>> -- 
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> Now available for purchase at:
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>>
>> "soc" <zxc0@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:eWfg9uQ4EHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello,
>>> We aim to use the current server (w2k,sql2000ent, 2x1ghz, 1gb ram, 
>>> mirrored pair & raid 5 for data) as a failover machine and upgrade to a 
>>> new server for production.
>>> The 2 machines will be in different countries. Users in both countries 
>>> will use the production server. If the connection between the countries 
>>> is broken, the remote users will use the failover.
>>> We propose to have merge replication between the 2 machines (mainly one 
>>> way).
>>> How can we estimate the physical physical size of data that would need 
>>> to be transferred to the failover m/c for a given time period?
>>> Presumably it would make sense to use w2003 on both machines?
>>> Do the operating systems on 2 merge replicating machines have to be the 
>>> same?
>>> Any advice would be appreciated.
>>> Thanks SOC.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages