Cons to seperate distributor

What are the cons of have the distribution database on its own seperate
server from the publishers with regards to transactional replication ? I am
more concerned from a latency perspective ?
Would the changes be a bit slower to propagate to the subscriber as a result
of this ?
Let me know
Using SQL 2000.
Thanks
Its very slightly slower, but the network hop isn't really detectable. The
real problem is you have introduced a single point of failure and need to
cluster the distributor as if it goes down your tlog on your publisher can
get very large very quickly.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ukDRx3BQGHA.2992@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> What are the cons of have the distribution database on its own seperate
> server from the publishers with regards to transactional replication ? I
> am more concerned from a latency perspective ?
> Would the changes be a bit slower to propagate to the subscriber as a
> result of this ?
> Let me know
> Using SQL 2000.
> Thanks
>
|||Hassan,
in terms of overall latency, using a remote distributor will be lower (ie
faster from Pub -> Sub) when there are a lot of transactions. Have a look at
this article for some stats:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../tranrepl.mspx
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)