Friday, March 30, 2012

Log Shipping vs Replication

I am seting up log shipping from a production SQL 2000 Enterprise server to a
similar server in our Disaster Recovery Site.
Various problems with log shipping have forced to rethink its use. I was
wondering how replication stacks up against Log Shipping, especially in the
areas of fail over and availability. I would want to cut over to the SQL
Server in the DR site in case of problems occuring. The two sites have a high
speed (~100 Megabit) link between them.
Thanks.
Sam
Log Shipping "replicates" the entire database as well as system objects,
permissions and database users.
While applying the logs the users cannot access the destination database.
Log Shipping's latency is at best 1 minute, assuming 0 s to copy the dumped
transaction log, and 0 seconds to apply it. In practice the latency is
around 2 minutes.
Log Shipping requires that the destination database be read only.
Transactional replication allows you to select which objects you wish to
replicate, and you can filter these objects by column or by row. Each table
object you replicate must have a PK.
Latency is at best a couple of seconds (setting the PollingInterval to 1s on
both the log reader and distribution agent), however underload you will
probably see a latency of 1 - 2 minutes.
With Transactional Replication users can access and update the subscription
database.
Paul Ibison has written an article on the differences which I can't locate
right now. I think its on SQL Server Central.
"Sam" <Sam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0A5697C-6290-457C-8FC6-40FF814F409C@.microsoft.com...
> I am seting up log shipping from a production SQL 2000 Enterprise server
to a
> similar server in our Disaster Recovery Site.
> Various problems with log shipping have forced to rethink its use. I was
> wondering how replication stacks up against Log Shipping, especially in
the
> areas of fail over and availability. I would want to cut over to the SQL
> Server in the DR site in case of problems occuring. The two sites have a
high
> speed (~100 Megabit) link between them.
> Thanks.
> Sam
|||Sam,
I did a comparison of the functionality of these 2 methods on
sqlservercentral.com - it's also in the articles section on
www.replicationanswers.com. The article concentrates on the functional
differences, as they are not identical or equivalent. Although not exactly
what you are asking for it might still be useful.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Hillary - thank you for your comments and information.
Paul - thank you for pointing out the articles on both web sites. I think I
will be purchasing your book before I do any real work on it.
Sam
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Sam,
> I did a comparison of the functionality of these 2 methods on
> sqlservercentral.com - it's also in the articles section on
> www.replicationanswers.com. The article concentrates on the functional
> differences, as they are not identical or equivalent. Although not exactly
> what you are asking for it might still be useful.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||Sam,
I wish I'd written it, but Hilary is the author
Rgds,
Paul
"Sam" <Sam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AEF16260-42B1-469E-AC30-F55C059C8536@.microsoft.com...
> Hillary - thank you for your comments and information.
> Paul - thank you for pointing out the articles on both web sites. I think
I[vbcol=seagreen]
> will be purchasing your book before I do any real work on it.
> Sam
> "Paul Ibison" wrote:
exactly[vbcol=seagreen]
sql

No comments:

Post a Comment