MSSQL transactional replication failure timeout / general network error

Hi all,
I was hoping someone can assist me in a problem that has been going on
for some time.
We have been experiencing replication problems for a while, when
replicating data (1 table of approx 150,000 records, 1 of 75,000) to
our SQL server on our website.
We have noticed a lot of general network errors, and although it often
sorts itself out, it sometimes fails and needs to be started by hand.
The data changes in batches every hour and sometimes 5% of the records
may be replaced.
This has recently got worst, to the point that SQL server is now
refusing to connect to our web database when I delete and re-push the
replication job. It simply waits for quite a while and then times
out. If I try and replicate a small table from the same publisher to
the same subscriber it works fine.
Does anyone have any ideas?
By the way
Using SQL server 2K, transactional replication over a 2Mb leased line.
Many thanks
Chris
enable replication logging to see where it is failing.
Follow the instructions here on how to enable logging.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;312292
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
Now available for purchase at:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Chris Bartington" <chris.bartington@.orange.net> wrote in message
news:175eba94.0411231017.76ce38d3@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi all,
> I was hoping someone can assist me in a problem that has been going on
> for some time.
> We have been experiencing replication problems for a while, when
> replicating data (1 table of approx 150,000 records, 1 of 75,000) to
> our SQL server on our website.
> We have noticed a lot of general network errors, and although it often
> sorts itself out, it sometimes fails and needs to be started by hand.
> The data changes in batches every hour and sometimes 5% of the records
> may be replaced.
> This has recently got worst, to the point that SQL server is now
> refusing to connect to our web database when I delete and re-push the
> replication job. It simply waits for quite a while and then times
> out. If I try and replicate a small table from the same publisher to
> the same subscriber it works fine.
> Does anyone have any ideas?
> By the way
> Using SQL server 2K, transactional replication over a 2Mb leased line.
> Many thanks
> Chris

MSSQL Replication

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

mssql mem usage

running mssql server 2000. experiencing extremely high mem usage - 420 000 k. Can anyone help me determine what on earth is happening? Urgent.
Appreciate any help.
tq.420MB of RAM used is no where near of being "too high". What's the total physical memory? If you have memory shortage you should set the max for SQL service (in fact you should always set the max value)|||Most of my machines run well over 2 Gb for SQL Server... 420 Mb would be heavy on a workstation (Personal Edition), but wouldn't be enough to start most of our servers.

-PatP|||420MB would be heavy on a workstation? What does it have to do with a workstation? Are you running prod environment off of it? Personal edition is for development and for occasional "select * from authors" when arguing with dbForums' bunch trying to prove the point ;)|||this is an prod environment. machine total physical memory is 523760. sqlserver.exe is using 375 000 to 420 000 k. It has been running for a year with no problems. until now...what would be the optimal value to set the max for sql?|||First, add MORE memory, at least 512MB more. With 1GB of physical memory you can set the minimum for SQL at 800MB. Since it started consuming more memory it's an indicator that some optimization needs to be performed since your volume of data increased.