Go Premium for a chance to win a PS4. Enter to Win

x
?
Solved

some LinkedServer + some replication vs Lot of Linked server and very few replications

Posted on 2013-01-11
4
Medium Priority
?
217 Views
Last Modified: 2013-01-17
which is better, performance wise:

one main server replicating to 3 next level servers.
then 5 servers have linked server connection to each of the above 3 servers.

so the first 3 get their supply for data from main server through continuous replication. then the remaining 15 get access through linked servers to the 3 servers.

(OR)

18 servers hit the main server through linked server.

(they are all the same database in the 19 servers). as the main server is updated, local copy is needed in 18 servers..  that is the plan..

which do you think is reasonable and more efficient in all seasons.. (in general standards recommendation)

thanks
0
Comment
Question by:25112
  • 2
4 Comments
 
LVL 5

Author Comment

by:25112
ID: 38769142
all 19 servers are dedicated Sql servers, and they have other databases also, of course in each one of them.

the main server is sql 2008.. and the remaining 18 are some 2008, some 2005 and some 2000
0
 
LVL 75

Accepted Solution

by:
Anthony Perkins earned 400 total points
ID: 38769186
I am afraid I do not understand your question, other than it sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges.

The only thing I would add and this may possibly be something you have overlooked and that is that Replication uses linked servers to keep the data in sync.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:Chris Luttrell
Chris Luttrell earned 1600 total points
ID: 38769268
If you are referring to setting up a linked server on the database and then running queries with fully qualified references like [LinkToMainServer].[DatabaseName].[SchemaName].[TableName] to get at data from the remote servers, then those queries are very inefficient.  Especially if joining tables across the link they often cannot take advantage of optimizers and/or default to dragging all the data from the remote server (from the perspective of the server the query is run on) over to the local server to operate with and it ends up being a big, indexless operation.
True Replication, if you can do that going backwards to the 2000 machines would probably be the thing to look into.
0
 
LVL 5

Author Comment

by:25112
ID: 38787456
OK.. we will phase out the [LinkToMainServer].[DatabaseName].[SchemaName].[TableName]  operations..
0

Featured Post

How to Use the Help Bell

Need to boost the visibility of your question for solutions? Use the Experts Exchange Help Bell to confirm priority levels and contact subject-matter experts for question attention.  Check out this how-to article for more information.

Question has a verified solution.

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

Ever needed a SQL 2008 Database replicated/mirrored/log shipped on another server but you can't take the downtime inflicted by initial snapshot or disconnect while T-logs are restored or mirror applied? You can use SQL Server Initialize from Backup…
Windocks is an independent port of Docker's open source to Windows.   This article introduces the use of SQL Server in containers, with integrated support of SQL Server database cloning.
Via a live example, show how to shrink a transaction log file down to a reasonable size.
Via a live example, show how to setup several different housekeeping processes for a SQL Server.

885 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