Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm a developer and wanting to confirm the following:

Does anyone here have experience with SQL Server Replication (transactional) on 2000? We are trying to convince the DBAs to allow this in a production environment so that we can concurrently run "tests" -- but the DBAs are telling us that Replication in SQL Server 2000 doesn't work and/or that it has a severe performance impact on the source server.

I tried googling some information on this but haven't found any such information.

Also, do you know if it is true/not true that queries from Stored Procedures or queries called from a Linked Servers will take precedence over other queries (e.g. dynamic queries from a connecting application). I didn't think this was possible and have found no reference to this via my google searches... but the DBA claims this is true for SQL Server 2000, and as a result, causes notable performance slowdown from users of the web app connecting to the database.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
For context, I believe this is an offshoot of this SO question –  billinkc Dec 2 '13 at 18:21
    
yes billinkc, that is my question on SO looking for options. My question here is really to confirm what I've been told by our DBAs. Thanks. –  RRR Dec 2 '13 at 18:38
    
My first question would be... Why would you want to use an usupported version of SQL Server. SQL Server 2000 has already reached EOL as you can see here: support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=SQL –  KookieMonster Dec 2 '13 at 19:09

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Note that You are arguing for an UNSUPPORTED version of sql server.

Apart from that read below :

but the DBAs are telling us that Replication in SQL Server 2000 doesn't work and/or that it has a severe performance impact on the source server.

This is completely False. Why would T-Rep not work in sql 2000 ? Why would it have a severe performance impact on source server ?

The only impact that I can see is

  • During the initial snapshot generation as it locks the table while the snapshot is generated and if the table is huge then it will lock it for longer durations. Imagine this causing blocking or possibly timeouts.
  • when you are replicating the entire database (not only required set of tables/articles) and when you want to reinitialize the replicaiton - meaning new snapshot !
  • When the n/w bandwithd is not good or there are n/w related issues.

Above holds true even today for sql server 2012 or 2014.

Note that T-Rep on sql 2005 and up has improved a lot, but the argument your DBA has made is baseless. We even has some legacy applications running on sql 2000 and we use replication heavily and is stable in sql 2000 - no issues at all.

if it is true/not true that queries from Stored Procedures or queries called from a Linked Servers will take precedence over other queries (e.g. dynamic queries from a connecting application).

Again completely baseless or you might have misunderstood it. Stored procedures can have their plan complied and stored in procedure cache and the plan can be reused.

I don't think you can have priority of the kind you have mentioned.

share|improve this answer
    
thank you - that's what I thought too. And in no way am I advocating for the continued use of SQL Server 2000. This database is used by an installed version of an old PeopleSoft for a government organization with over 40K employees. It is not a trivial task to upgrade (so I'm told)... so I have to work with what I'm given. –  RRR Dec 2 '13 at 23:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.