May 29, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hello,
I implemented snapshot replication between SQL 2005 and SQL2000 to be able to go back in case of problems. I checked everything during publication creation and I found out that replica has much less space used than original one (8.5 GB instead of 14.2) Do you know why there is such difference?
My first thought is that maybe indexes on replica are missing and must be recreated. Any thoughts?
MCP ID# 1115468 Ceritified Since 1998
MCP, MCSE, MCP+I, MCSE+I, MCSA,
MCDBA SQL7.0 SQL 2000, MCTS SQL 2005
May 29, 2008 at 7:29 am
You can configure if indexes keys, etc. are to be replicated. If they have not been selected, that would account for the difference. In addition, if your source has fragmented indexes, the destination may not so they can be of significantly different sizes.
May 30, 2008 at 4:37 am
There are so many reasons there could be such a size difference. There are a lot of "things" in SQL 2005 that causes a database restored from 2000 to gain size just in the act of being restored to a SQL 2005 instance. SQL 2005 seems to inheriently be a space hog. @=) If you want to test it, back up the replicated DB and restore it to SQL 2005 under a different name to see what kind of space difference there is.
As long as all your data appears to be in SQL 2000, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just verify that everything you want and need is being replicated.
Also, make sure your SQL 2005 db and the SQL 2000 db are being backed up properly on a regular basis. This is the ultimate disaster recovery solution and you shouldn't rely only on snapshot replication as a method of "falling back" in case of problems.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply