Our existing SQL Server is experiencing some troubles and we would like to replace it with new hardware. Of course a migration will be in order to move off of this hardware and onto the new.
To better protect our business critical needs we have decided to implement SQL Server Replication. The SQL Server is what helps drive our everyday business. Without it, we are "dead in the water"! The other day, we lost approximately 10 hours of productivity until SQL Services could be restored.
My question is, if it would be wise to have yet a 3rd server used as a Distributor for Replication or if it would be okay to have the Distributor and Publisher on the same server?
I am concerned that there may be performance problems if we place the two roles on the same machine event though the hardware is very good. Below is the important server configuration.
Windows 2003 Standard Edition
SQL Server Standard Edition
Dual 2.4Ghz with HyperThreading
2GB of RAM
RAID5 for MDF Files
RAID1 for LDF Files
Thank you all for your responses and suggestions.It's always recommended by MS to consider having a server per role. In addition you may want to set up Alternate location and file compression, which will lower network activity caused by replication process.|||I found an aritcle that outlines some performance considerations. I think it is exactly what I am looking for.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/tranrepl.mspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment