Push or Pull

I've always had a hard time getting my head around Push and Pull
Subscriptions.
Ive read that it really doesnt have a huge impact on a box, and that what
really matters is where the Distributor is. That Push or Pull is more for
Administrative type of stuff. Just not sure about this.
I just started at a company that uses quite a bit of replication. So far Ive
come up with two Publishers and propably or 6 or 8 Subscribers. The
Distributors are both Local and the Subscriptions are all Pull. It is all
Transactional Replication, some of it continuos, some every 15 minutes.
So my questions are:
Would I be better off to use a dedicated Remote Distributor? One of my main
objectives here is to speed up these boxes.
If I did use a Remote Distributor, would it matter if I went to Push
Subscriptions for centralized Administration? Or would that defeat my goal
of speeding up the Publisher?
I don't like remote distributors and hesitate before using them. If your
remote distributor goes down you can end up with ballooning tlogs on your
publication databases and you can have problems getting your log reader
agent working again.
If you have high throughput and are experiencing locking you might want to
look at them.
Pull subscriptions do lessen the load on the publisher. They are the best
solution when you have a lot of subscribers, are replicating across the
internet or when your subscribers are not well connected or not always
connected, you can live with no central point of administration (other than
replication monitor group).
the rest of the answers are inline.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:%23ydW$eHNFHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've always had a hard time getting my head around Push and Pull
> Subscriptions.
> Ive read that it really doesnt have a huge impact on a box, and that what
> really matters is where the Distributor is. That Push or Pull is more for
> Administrative type of stuff. Just not sure about this.
> I just started at a company that uses quite a bit of replication. So far
Ive
> come up with two Publishers and propably or 6 or 8 Subscribers. The
> Distributors are both Local and the Subscriptions are all Pull. It is all
> Transactional Replication, some of it continuos, some every 15 minutes.
> So my questions are:
> Would I be better off to use a dedicated Remote Distributor? One of my
main
> objectives here is to speed up these boxes.
I would only use this if you are experiencing considerable locking in your
distribution database.

> If I did use a Remote Distributor, would it matter if I went to Push
> Subscriptions for centralized Administration?
No, not for a few always connected subscribers.
Or would that defeat my goal
> of speeding up the Publisher?
Stop your log reader and distribution agent. Do you get a significant
increase in performance. If so, migrate; if not (and suspect not) stay with
the local distributor.
>

Publisher/Distributor

Hi,
I would like to hear opinion from experts.
Assume I have 3 warehouses and 1 Head office. I want to build a
centralized Subscriber. should i use
"3 Publishers/3 Distributors and 1 Subscriber" -- each sever will have 1 P
and 1 D
or
"3 Publishers and 1 Distributor and 1 Subscriber"
or
both way will work well...
Thanks
Ed
I would use 3 publishers and 3 local distributors (on the same box as the
three publishers).
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A2A37F3-7254-4985-9B5F-A5A5C000F980@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to hear opinion from experts.
> Assume I have 3 warehouses and 1 Head office. I want to build a
> centralized Subscriber. should i use
> "3 Publishers/3 Distributors and 1 Subscriber" -- each sever will have 1
P
> and 1 D
> or
> "3 Publishers and 1 Distributor and 1 Subscriber"
> or
> both way will work well...
> Thanks
> Ed

Publish scenario - how can this work?

Our current setup has a hand held device, a laptop and head office. The
field reps have the hand held and laptop and need to get and send data back
to head office. Merge Replication seems to be the answer and I was thinking
that the Head Office would publish to the Laptop and the Laptop would then
publish to the Hand Held. But SQL Server 2005 Express can only be a
Subscriber and not a Publisher.
The reason to do this is that only certain rows will be published to the
laptop (say 1 weeks work) and then only certain rows (say 1 or 2 days work)
will be published to the hand held.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Here's how it breaks down:
Head Office = SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
Laptop = SQL Server 2005 Express Edition
Hand Held = SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition
Thanks,
Richard.
You might want to look at RDA as the transit mechanism between Express and
the HandHelds.
Otherwise I would replicate from the Standard Edition publisher to the
handhelds.
http://www.zetainteractive.com - Shift Happens!
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Richard Wodabek" <rwodabek@.cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:uocMysrNIHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Our current setup has a hand held device, a laptop and head office. The
> field reps have the hand held and laptop and need to get and send data
> back
> to head office. Merge Replication seems to be the answer and I was
> thinking
> that the Head Office would publish to the Laptop and the Laptop would then
> publish to the Hand Held. But SQL Server 2005 Express can only be a
> Subscriber and not a Publisher.
> The reason to do this is that only certain rows will be published to the
> laptop (say 1 weeks work) and then only certain rows (say 1 or 2 days
> work)
> will be published to the hand held.
> Is there a way to accomplish this?
> Here's how it breaks down:
> Head Office = SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
> Laptop = SQL Server 2005 Express Edition
> Hand Held = SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
|||Thanks Hilary, RDA might work for us.
Any chance 2008 Express Edition will allow Publishing?
Richard.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uNmcUmzNIHA.292@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> You might want to look at RDA as the transit mechanism between Express and
> the HandHelds.
> Otherwise I would replicate from the Standard Edition publisher to the
> handhelds.
> --
> http://www.zetainteractive.com - Shift Happens!
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Richard Wodabek" <rwodabek@.cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:uocMysrNIHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
then
>