>> Those do not appear to be very challenging requirements. You could
>> probably even do this without any of the built-in replication at all
>> but with just incremental backups. How have you currently configured
>> your backups? Do you notice a performance impact when you run a full
>> backup? D
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> The current schedule for backups is a full backup at 3am for the group
> of databases and then a transactional backup every hour from 7am to
> 10pm during the week.
>> For performance size doesn't matter all
> Those do not appear to be very challenging requirements. You could
> probably even do this without any of the built-in replication at all
> but with just incremental backups. How have you currently configured
> your backups? Do you notice a performance impact when you run a full
> backup? Do you
> Don wrote:
> With regard to 1,498 tables, do you mean, User Tables? just for clarity.
Yes, 1498 user tables. The application was originally built on a
flat-file database system like DB3/4 or Foxpro and was ported to SQL
Server without re-engineering the database. All of the tables have 8
char
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
> The main thing I'm worried about is any performance "hit" on the
> publishing server. The target server can lag behind data-wise by a
> bit (30 minutes to an hour is an acceptable delay).
Those do not appear to be very challenging requ
>Thanks for the comments, Don!
>
>The main thing I'm worried about is any performance "hit" on the
>publishing server. The target server can lag behind data-wise by a
>bit (30 minutes to an hour is an acceptable delay). The problem is
>the size. A MS Dynamics GP database contains 1,498 tables (
Thanks for the comments, Don!
The main thing I'm worried about is any performance "hit" on the
publishing server. The target server can lag behind data-wise by a
bit (30 minutes to an hour is an acceptable delay). The problem is
the size. A MS Dynamics GP database contains 1,498 tables (not
in
>Question for anyone that handles SQL Replication: What effect would
>setting up transactional replication from a large Windows 2000
>database (17 Gb) with moderate usage (18-20 max simultaneous
>connections) to a Windows 2005 server have on the performance of the
>Windows 2000 machine?
>
>The rea
Question for anyone that handles SQL Replication: What effect would
setting up transactional replication from a large Windows 2000
database (17 Gb) with moderate usage (18-20 max simultaneous
connections) to a Windows 2005 server have on the performance of the
Windows 2000 machine?
The reason beh
9 matches
Mail list logo
