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 |
|
Tk_Neo
Starting Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-10-20 : 17:35:41
|
| I work for a company which has 2 offices. One in USA. Other in London.This is the scenario that i want to implement:Both office would have a local SQL server 2000. One would be the publisher, other subscriber. Changes made to subscriber also should be reflected to publisher.Right now the applications in the london office use the server in the USA office and this makes things really slow. In my scenario order of transactions doesnt matter as long as both the servers have the same data. I want to go for transactional over snapshot as the data will be immediately updated on both servers.But there are a few consideration:1. Would the immediate update cause additional delays?2. What if one of the servers is down for a while?Can anyone help me choose a replication scheme? Any feedback would be appreciated. |
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-20 : 22:39:21
|
| by the sound of it, you might want to consider merge replicationyou can search the replication forum, i think some tips where posted there...HTH--------------------keeping it simple... |
 |
|
|
Tk_Neo
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-21 : 14:04:14
|
| Yes. Thanks for the reply. I figured out that i need merge replication. Now i am working on the intricacies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL2k replication (transactional/snapshot) ??