3rd party replication tools

Hi all,
We need to setup a simple 2 way replication between 2 independent sites to
synchronize the data between them.
It looks to us that setting up the native SQL Server replication is somewhat
an overkill for our needs.
We are worried about the administrative overhead and problems associated
with it.
Reading the posts here on this newsgroup only elevated our concerns :-)
I would like to know if you have any recommendations for a simple and
reliable 3rd party replication tools to do the job.
The servers (clustered WIN2K machines with SQL Server 2000 SP3 Ent.) will be
located on the east and west coast, connected by a fast and reliable ISP
backbone.
backup network will be a VPN over the internet.
The allowed time delta of data sync is about 5 minutes max, faster is
better.
Replicated data size will be less than 1MB/hour in each direction.
any comments and recomendations will be appreciated.
Thank in advance,
Amy
If you think you are going to have problems with SQL Server replication,
imagine the problems you will have with 3rd partly replication products
which actually use SQL Server replication under the covers (i.e. data
mirror).
Just because this newsgroup is pretty active doesn't mean that replication
is problematic?
Think of it like divorce attorneys. All they see are failed marriages, and
so they are pretty pessimistic about marriages. Simiarly, just because this
newsgroup deals with replication doesn't mean that it can't be made to be
bullet proof.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZQHVRJgEHA.3948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We need to setup a simple 2 way replication between 2 independent sites to
> synchronize the data between them.
> It looks to us that setting up the native SQL Server replication is
somewhat
> an overkill for our needs.
> We are worried about the administrative overhead and problems associated
> with it.
> Reading the posts here on this newsgroup only elevated our concerns :-)
> I would like to know if you have any recommendations for a simple and
> reliable 3rd party replication tools to do the job.
> The servers (clustered WIN2K machines with SQL Server 2000 SP3 Ent.) will
be
> located on the east and west coast, connected by a fast and reliable ISP
> backbone.
> backup network will be a VPN over the internet.
> The allowed time delta of data sync is about 5 minutes max, faster is
> better.
> Replicated data size will be less than 1MB/hour in each direction.
> any comments and recomendations will be appreciated.
> Thank in advance,
> Amy
>
>
|||Thanks Hilary,
I think i get you.
BTW: The remark about the newsgroup was not meant seriously :-)
We have experience on another larger system with SQL Server replication but
on that system (13 Servers with multiple merge and transactional
replications) the demands were pretty complex so we chose the native system.
The system works great until something happens and it fails. Sometimes it's
a breeze to recover, on other times we have spent white nights recovering
and reinitializing it.
For this system, the demands are really simple.
Just sync around 5 tables both ways.
We have considered writing a custom SQL / c# asynchronous application with
simple queue tables that will use DTS / linked servers to do the trick.
We have also checked the option of using diff tools like red gate's data
compare and sqldiff. Although it's not their true purpose, we feel it might
just work.
This should be very easy to recover and reinitialize J
I was wondering if anyone has tried this approach before and any other
comments you may have on this issue.
Thanks again,
Amy
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:eNkFfiJgEHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If you think you are going to have problems with SQL Server replication,
> imagine the problems you will have with 3rd partly replication products
> which actually use SQL Server replication under the covers (i.e. data
> mirror).
> Just because this newsgroup is pretty active doesn't mean that replication
> is problematic?
> Think of it like divorce attorneys. All they see are failed marriages, and
> so they are pretty pessimistic about marriages. Simiarly, just because
this[vbcol=seagreen]
> newsgroup deals with replication doesn't mean that it can't be made to be
> bullet proof.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ZQHVRJgEHA.3948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> somewhat
will
> be
>
|||I wish I could tell you that replication has been problem free for me, and I
have never had to tear everything down and start from scratch. But
occasionally I have. Sometimes it has been due to bugs, and sometimes due to
errors I have made in deployment.
Without knowing exactly why you are running into the errors you are
experiencing which force you to reinitialize, regenerate, and redistribute
your snapshots, its hard for me to comment on what approach you should take.
The temptation is always great to believe that you can cobble together
something that will work better than the solution that Microsoft has
provided us. However, when you use replication and it fails you can always
call Microsoft at 2:00 am and get support. When you cobble together a system
of your own design it is always fragile, and could break with the next
schema change, service pack, version upgrade, reinitialization or even the
next transaction. Then again, you might come up with something that is
bullet proof.
Your decision will have to be based on where your skill levels lie - i.e.
with SQL Server replication, or something you cobble together yourself.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
news:ug8fjnKgEHA.2896@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hilary,
>
> I think i get you.
> BTW: The remark about the newsgroup was not meant seriously :-)
>
> We have experience on another larger system with SQL Server replication
but
> on that system (13 Servers with multiple merge and transactional
> replications) the demands were pretty complex so we chose the native
system.
> The system works great until something happens and it fails. Sometimes
it's
> a breeze to recover, on other times we have spent white nights recovering
> and reinitializing it.
>
> For this system, the demands are really simple.
> Just sync around 5 tables both ways.
>
> We have considered writing a custom SQL / c# asynchronous application with
> simple queue tables that will use DTS / linked servers to do the trick.
> We have also checked the option of using diff tools like red gate's data
> compare and sqldiff. Although it's not their true purpose, we feel it
might[vbcol=seagreen]
> just work.
> This should be very easy to recover and reinitialize J
>
> I was wondering if anyone has tried this approach before and any other
> comments you may have on this issue.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Amy
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
> news:eNkFfiJgEHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
replication[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> this
be[vbcol=seagreen]
sites[vbcol=seagreen]
> to
associated[vbcol=seagreen]
:-)[vbcol=seagreen]
> will
ISP
>