replication question

What is the thought on replicating over WAN links.
I have a DB hosted at an off-site ISP it is about 1.2 GB in size. I would
like a local copy of the DB. So I would like to set up one-way replication.
The ISP says that replication is resource intensive. We have a 768K
Fractional T-1 they tell me that replication would suck up all that
bandwidth? There aren't a lot of updates that go on the DB in a day over
time there are a lot of updates but on a typical day there aren't a terrible
lot.
So I'm trying to gauge whether the ISP is right or if they aren't really
sure in what they are telling me. I would just
like to have a local copy of our DB on-site in-case the ISP's site goes down
for whatever reason.
Thanks,
Geo
Hi Marc
If you are applying normal transactional replication and don't have a lot of
transactions then your line would be more than adequate. The only bandwidth
intensive process would be when you initialize and apply a 1.2 GB snapshot
accross the line. Then SQL will use as much bandwidth as possible.
We've run transactional replication successfully on 256k lines without it
having a huge impact on the line. Again depending on the transaction volumes.
Regards
Cube
http://www.sqlserver.co.za
"marc" wrote:

> What is the thought on replicating over WAN links.
> I have a DB hosted at an off-site ISP it is about 1.2 GB in size. I would
> like a local copy of the DB. So I would like to set up one-way replication.
> The ISP says that replication is resource intensive. We have a 768K
> Fractional T-1 they tell me that replication would suck up all that
> bandwidth? There aren't a lot of updates that go on the DB in a day over
> time there are a lot of updates but on a typical day there aren't a terrible
> lot.
> So I'm trying to gauge whether the ISP is right or if they aren't really
> sure in what they are telling me. I would just
> like to have a local copy of our DB on-site in-case the ISP's site goes down
> for whatever reason.
> Thanks,
> Geo
>
>

Replication looking for errant sysserver links

We have replication successfully running but when I tried to set up a new test instance on completely different servers (Server A to Server B, say) the push agent to create the susbcription on Server B complains

'Could not find server 'Server C' in sysservers. Execute sp_addlinkedserver. . . .'

Server C was never configured as a subscriber for the publication in the first place. What's more, Server C is actually a working linked server and definitely is in sysservers for Server A.

I originally tried this on yet another server pair and got a similar message referencing a server name that no longer exists. I stopped messing with that one, figuring it was some historical naming issue I didn't want to mess with. But now I'm stumped and intrigued. Can anyone help?

Did you deploy your subscriber through a script? Perhaps you forgot to edit the script for the new topology.|||Unfortunately, no. I just used the Wizards, and specified everything. Bit bewildering.|||Do "select * from sysservers" to see if you have any rogue entries in there. You can remove the incorrect ones via sp_dropserver.|||

The supposedly unlinked server is definitely linked, and shows up correctly in the sysserver collection, which also looks fine.

It's wierd, but it's only a test instance I was trying to set up, Our live replication is working fine and we didn't really need the test this time.

I think these servers went through name changes. It probably had the server linked under its old name. Just a guess, but we had a lot of problems changing server names when our corporation was absorbed into a larger IT force and we had to follow a new naming convention. Replication broke, of course, and I recall we needed to clean out various tables before we could reimplement. So I'm guessing it's something along those lines.