Timeline for Create a secondary read-only copy of DB in a different server
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2015 at 4:57 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackDBAs/status/670466622424006656 | ||
| Nov 27, 2015 at 19:33 | history | edited | Hannah Vernon♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 12, 2013 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 12, 2013 at 13:15 | |||||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 2:56 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | People pay money for a product if it has business value, regardless of how oblivious the vendor is about the implementation of the system. By the way, to the OP, adding replication to a vendor database without their go-ahead may void your support contract if you have one. FYI. | |
| Sep 5, 2013 at 19:56 | answer | added | AbuTaareq | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 22:54 | comment | added | Greenstone Walker | A follow-on to Aaron's comment - why did you pay money for this product? Vendors get away with substandard database practices only because us consumers keep giving them money. Seriously - 190GB of stuff with no primary keys is not a "database", it is a "mess". I suggest you also spend a little time investigating whether you can vote with your wallet and move to a better ERP system (though I know the chance of it actually happening is low) Perhaps you can apply some pressure to the vendor by hinting to them that you are considering other options? | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 21:08 | answer | added | Kin Shah | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 21:00 | answer | added | Hannah Vernon♦ | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | arnprior | @Kin The database is nearly 190 GB and the servers are connected at 1 gigabit speed. We want to refresh the data at least once per day (real time updates are not needed). | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 19:43 | comment | added | arnprior | @AaronBertrand The database was created by the vendor for the ERP system. They did not create Primary Keys for all tables ... not our decision. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 18:19 | answer | added | mrdenny | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 17:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 4, 2013 at 8:30 | |||||
| Sep 3, 2013 at 17:22 | comment | added | Kin Shah |
What is the database size and how fast is the link between primary server and secondary server ? Do you need data in real time or a days worth of old data can be used ? Try looking into SNAPSHOT replication. Also, agree with @AaronBertrand point .. why no PK's ?
|
|
| Sep 3, 2013 at 17:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 3, 2013 at 20:43 | |||||
| Sep 3, 2013 at 17:07 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand | Begs the question: why do you not have primary keys? | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 16:52 | history | asked | arnprior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |