Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Ach
Starting Member
13 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-10-19 : 07:41:36
|
| Hi all, I have two SQL Server installation on two seperate machines that both ones were installed using *default instance*,I mean they are not *Named instances*. My question is: Is it possible to replicate between two servers? Or both should be named instances? I heared that one of the reasons that *Named instances* are preferred is that replication and SQLMail is not feasible on default not named instances.Is this true? -Thanks |
|
|
SQLServerDBA_Dan
Aged Yak Warrior
752 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-19 : 08:35:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ach
Hi all, I have two SQL Server installation on two seperate machines that both ones were installed using *default instance*,I mean they are not *Named instances*. My question is: Is it possible to replicate between two servers? Or both should be named instances? I heared that one of the reasons that *Named instances* are preferred is that replication and SQLMail is not feasible on default not named instances.Is this true? -Thanks
No, it's not true to my knowledge. You can setup SQLMail on any type of instance and the same for replication; but, its generally thought that both are unreliable products of SQL Server. We use SMTP instead of SQLMail and log shipping over replication. Log shipping is not available for SQL Standard and in many ways is not the same as replication but for our purposes its the best option.Daniel, MCP, A+SQL Server DBAwww.dallasteam.com |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to replicate between to *Default in