2

I've primarily a developer, but our organization is small, so I have been tasked with developing a HA strategy for our SQL servers.

Currently, I manage our transactional replication to two additional servers - one for serving web content and one for handling more intensive queries. Writes still only happen to one server.

I'm at TechEd right now trying to educate myself enough for this task, and have heard a lot of people talk about database mirroring, and the difference between synchronous and asynchronous mirroring, i.e., the data loss vs. performance tradeoffs.

I am familiar with transactional replication, but not DBM. I see clear advantages of synchronous DBM, but don't know why one would use asynchronous DBM over simple transactional replication. Could someone fill me in?

1 Answer 1

2

If you are looking for HA of only few tables then TR can be used but DBM works with the whole database. Also note that setting up DBM is easy to configure and manage when compared to TR.

If you need to learn more abt DBM then look at Robert Davis book on the topic.

2
  • Can't transactional replication do a whole database as well, including views, functions, and other objects? I'm pretty comfortable with TR, so I'm not worried about the configuration and management. I'm just wondering why I might want to drop a ton of money on several copies of SQL Enterprise to mainly get DBM. I'll definitely check out that book, thanks! May 17, 2011 at 23:54
  • With TR, you can replicate the whole database but do you want to do that with say 100 or 500 or 1000 tables? Both have its pros & cons and you need to ask the right questions yourself. Do you want automatic failover so that there is no/minimal data loss? DBM is also available in Standard IIRC. May 18, 2011 at 0:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .