Solved

Temporarily Disable Replication without removing subscriptions

Posted on 2011-03-01
10
4,209 Views
Last Modified: 2012-06-21
I am looking for a way of temporarily disabling replication on a SQL 2008 server without deleting the subscriptions.
0
Comment
Question by:hplovecraft
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • +2
10 Comments
 
LVL 20

Expert Comment

by:Marten Rune
ID: 35015836
What about stopping the log reader agent. That should do the trick

//Marten
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:dbaSQL
ID: 35019816
Actually, I think you could just stop the SQL Server Agent, and then restart it when you are ready to resume replication.
0
 
LVL 13

Expert Comment

by:geek_vj
ID: 35024350
Is there any specific purpose behind doing this? If yes, kindly let us know as we can suggest the best way for doing it.
If it is just disabling temporarily without making any configuration changes, then you can stop the log reader agent.
0
Best Practices: Disaster Recovery Testing

Besides backup, any IT division should have a disaster recovery plan. You will find a few tips below relating to the development of such a plan and to what issues one should pay special attention in the course of backup planning.

 
LVL 48

Assisted Solution

by:Vitor Montalvão
Vitor Montalvão earned 100 total points
ID: 35025796
Launch Replication Monitor, right-click on replication you want and choose "Stop synchronize".
Don't stop SQL Server Agent because you'll kill a fly with a bomb and could hit some other animals too (animals = jobs).
0
 
LVL 20

Accepted Solution

by:
Marten Rune earned 400 total points
ID: 35028284
The sql agent, hmmm. Why not just stop sql server service!

Well a bit harsh, but ... The log reader agent is a sole job. Why stop the sql agent. When you could disable one job. Stop the agent and maintenance plans stop working, perhaps some db is sql agent drven and so forth. see:;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151783.aspx
or
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqlreplication/thread/c68f562f-2a22-4873-a8d8-f988e41cd6f7/

//Marten
0
 

Author Comment

by:hplovecraft
ID: 35036706
We are in the middle of testing out replication for a data warehouse project. The reason for the question is we have had a few instances where replication had to be "stopped" because of a stored procedure update on the production SQL server. (multiple stored procedures had to be updated.)

From what I have been told, in order to update a stored procedure, you have to stop replication, then restart replication. The person that updated the stored procedure actually completelly disabled the publication, (which had to be recreated) so I'm looking for a way of ensuring that the publication stays in place the next time we need to update stored procedures on the production SQL 2008 server. (This is the publisher)

I'm relatively new to SQL (only worked with it for about 3 years, but not on a daily basis) , but I've read that replication can also be scripted so if this happens again it can be reloaded fairly quick, but I'm still learning about that.
0
 
LVL 48

Expert Comment

by:Vitor Montalvão
ID: 35037051
The only time you need to stop replication it's when you need to make modifications in an object that is replicated. Modificating others objects can be done with replication working.
0
 

Author Comment

by:hplovecraft
ID: 35039382
We are running SQL 2008 SP1

The object was being replicated from what I have been told.

Vmontalvao, I looked for the "stop synchronize" option in Repl mon and didn't see it. I right clicked on the publisher, is that correct or am I looking in the wrong place?

Martenrune, is stopping the log job the only job I should stop or should I stop the snapshot job also?

Last couple of questions: If we stop replication through either of these methods, and it's down for a short period of time, say 1-2 hours should we recreate the snapshot if a modification is made to a replicated object(s)?

If we stop replication and down for a longer period of time, say a few days...is it easier to recreate the snapshot, or let replication continue as normal? I'm sure that the amount of data to be replicated will determine this, but how does someone make that determination?

0
 
LVL 20

Expert Comment

by:Marten Rune
ID: 35039631
Log job is sufficient

To determine if you will benefit from a new snapshot initialization, compare the log sizes (total) with the size of the database. If log files is lesser then let replication catch up, if the database is lesser, recreate a snapshot will be faster.

//Marten
0
 

Author Comment

by:hplovecraft
ID: 35053345
Thanks!
0

Featured Post

Best Practices: Disaster Recovery Testing

Besides backup, any IT division should have a disaster recovery plan. You will find a few tips below relating to the development of such a plan and to what issues one should pay special attention in the course of backup planning.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

There have been several questions about Large Transaction Log Files in SQL Server 2008, and how to get rid of them when disk space has become critical. This article will explain how to disable full recovery and implement simple recovery that carries…
Use this article to create a batch file to backup a Microsoft SQL Server database to a Windows folder.  The folder can be on the local hard drive or on a network share.  This batch file will query the SQL server to get the current date & time and wi…
This video shows how to use Hyena, from SystemTools Software, to bulk import 100 user accounts from an external text file. View in 1080p for best video quality.
Although Jacob Bernoulli (1654-1705) has been credited as the creator of "Binomial Distribution Table", Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) did his dissertation on the subject in 1666; Leibniz you may recall is the co-inventor of "Calculus" and beat Isaac…

809 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question