I have installed SQL server database (mainserver) in one instance and SQL server database for RerportServer in others. what is the best way to replicate data from mainServer to report Server? Data in mainServer changes frequently and actual information in the ReportSever is very important.
And there is many ways to do this:
mirroring
shipping log
transactional replication
merge replication
snapshot replication
are there some best-practices about this?
Thanks
You need Transactional Replication for your case. Here is why you would not need the other 4 cases:
Mirroring
This is generally used to increase the availability of a database server and provides for automatic failover in case of a disaster.
Typically even though you have more than a single copy of the database (recommended to be on different server instances), only one of them is active at a time, called the principle server.
Every operation on this server instance is mirrored on the others continuously (as soon as possible), so this doesn't fit your use case.
Log Shipping
In this case, apart from the production database servers, you have extra failover servers such that the backup of the production server's database, differential & transactional logs are automatically shipped (copied) to the failovers, and restored.
The replication here is relatively scheduled to be at a longer interval of time than the other mechanisms, typically ranging from an hour to a couple of hours.
This also provides for having the failver servers readies manually in case of a disaster at the production sites.
This also doesn't fit your use case.
Merge Replication
The key difference between this and the others is that the replicated database instances can communicate to the different client applications independent of the changes being made to each other.
For example a database server in North America being updated by clients across Americas & Europe and another one in Australia being updated by clients across the Asia-Pacific region, and then the changes being merged to one another.
Again, it doesn't fit your use case.
Snapshot Replication
The whole snapshot of the database is published to be replicated to the secondary database (different from just the log files being shipped for replication.)
Initially however, for each type of replication a snapshot is generated to initialized the subscribing database, i.e only once.
Why you should use Transactional Replication?
You can choose the objects (Tables, Views, etc) to be replicated continuously, so if there are only a subset of the tables which are used to reporting, it would save a lot of bandwidth. This is not possible in Mirroring and Log Shipping.
You can redirect traffic from your application to the reporting server for all the reads and reports (which you can also do in others too, btw).
You can have independent batch jobs generating some of the more used reports running on the reporting server, reducing the load on the main server if it has quite frequent Inserts, Updates or Deletes.
Going through your list from top to bottom.
Mirroring: If you mirror your data from your mainServer to your reportServer you will not be able to access your reportServer. Mirroring puts the mirrored database into a continuous restoring state. Mirroring is a High Availability solution. In your case the reportServer will only be available to query if you do a fail over. The mirrored server is never operational till fail over. This is not what you want as you cannot use the reportServer till it is operational.
Log Shipping: Log shipping will allow you to apply transactional log backups on a scheduled event to the reportServer. If you backup the transaction log every 15 minutes and apply the data to the reportServer you will have a delay of 15+ minutes between your mainServer and Log server. Mirroring is actually real time log shipping. Depending on how you setup log shipping your client will have to disconnect while the database is busy restoring the log files. Thus during a long restore it might be impossible to use reporting. Log Shipping is also a High Availability feature and not really useful for reporting. See this link for a description of trying to access a database while it is trying to restore http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/sqldisasterrecovery/thread/c6931747-9dcb-41f6-bdf4-ae0f4569fda7
Replication : I am lumping all the replication together here. Replication especially transactional replication can help you scale out your reporting needs. It would generally be mush easier to implement and also you would be able to report on the data all of the time where in mirroring you cant report on the data in transaction log shipping you will have gaps. So in your case replication makes much more sense. Snapshot replication would be useful if your reports could be say a day old. You can make a snapshot every morning of the data you need from mainServer and publish this to the subscribers reportServer. However if the database is extremely large then Snapshot is going to be problematic to deal with on a daily basis. Merge replication is only usefull when you want to update the replicated data. In your case you want to have a read only copy of the data to report on so Merge replication is not going to help. Transactional Replication would allow you to send replications across the wire. In your case where you need frequently updated information in your reportServer this would be extremely useful. I would probably suggest this route for you.
Just remember that by implementing the replication/mirroring/log shipping you are creating more maintenance work. Replication CAN fail. So can mirroring and so can transaction log shipping. You will need to monitor these solutions to make sure they are running smoothly. So the question is do you really need to scale out your reports to another server or maybe spend time identifying why you cant report on the production server?
Hope that helps!
Related
I've got SQL2012 running on 2 different servers with public, static IP addresses. I want to implement replication in a way that will keep both servers in sync at all times, regardless of which server is actually receiving the data. I've been reading about the subscriber/publisher model but I'm not exactly sure which should be which. A few facts about our setup:
I'm trying to achieve failover. If server A goes down, I need server B to be operational and have all latest data, or as close as possible. And vice versa. When the server comes back online, I need the replication to get caught up quickly and start working again. I need failures to be graceful, in other words I can't have server A get weird just because server B went offline.
I don't need realtime replication, but close would be nice. If server A was 10 seconds behind server B with data updates, nobody would care. But if it were an hour behind, that would be bad. Fast DB performance is more important that realtime replication, but again, close would be nice.
My database is just shy of 900Mb, and grows by 3Mb per day.
I am looking for advice on the best way to set this up given my setup and needs. Much appreciated.
Since one server will be Primary and the other Failover, use Log Shipping. It will keep two databases the same for all transactions completed on Primary server upto the failure moment. All transactions that have not completed at the moment of failure, will not appear on Failover server, so they should resubmitted by the application and hit Failover server.
Also there should be a Recovery procedure, to ensure than Primary server is up to date.
Useful articles:
Database Mirroring and Log Shipping.
Configure Log Shipping
We have a decent sized, write-heavy database that is about 426 GB (including indexes) and about 300 million rows . We currently collect location data from devices that report to our server every couple of minutes, and we serve about 10,000 devices - so lots of writes every second. The location table that stores the location of each device has about 223 million rows. The data is currently archived by year.
Problems occur when users run large reports on this database, the whole database grinds down almost to a stop.
I understand I need a reporting database, but my question is if anyone has experience of using SQL Server Transactional Replication on a database of equivalent size, and their experience of using this technology?
My rough plan is to point all the reports in our application to the Reporting Database, use Transactional Replication to replicate the data over from the master to the slave (Reporting Database).
Anyone have any thoughts on this strategy and the problems I may encounter?
Many thanks!
Transactional replication should work well in this scenario (the only effect the size of the database will have is the time taken to generate the initial snapshot). However, it may not solve your problem.
I think the issue you'll have if you choose transactional replication is that the slave server is going to be under the same load as the master machine as changes are applied - it will still crawl when users run large reports (assuming it's of a similar spec).
Depending on the acceptable latency of reporting data to the live data, this may or may not be OK for your users.
If some latency is acceptable you may get better performance from log shipping, since changes are applied in batches.
Before acquiring a reporting server, another approach would be to investigate the queries that your users are running and look at modifying either their code or the indexing strategy to better match what they're trying to do.
Transactional Replication could work well for you. The things to consider:
The target database tables must be read-only.
The server containing the target database should be stout enough to handle the SELECT traffic from the reporting applications.
Depending on the INSERT/UPDATE traffic, you may need to have a third server act as the Distribution server.
You also have to consider the size of the Distribution database.
Based on what I read here, I'd use a pull subscription from the Reporting server to offload traffic from the OLTP server.
You can skip the torment of a snapshot by initializing the reporting database from a backup of the OLTP database. See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151705.aspx
There will be INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE traffic from the Replication into both the Distribution and the Subscriber databases. That requires consideration, but lock/block issues should be no worse (and probably better) than running those reports off of OLTP.
I am running multiple publications on a 2.6TB database with 2.5GB/day of growth, using both pure transactional to drive reports (to two reporting servers) and Peer-to-Peer Transactional to replicate data in a scale-out for a SaaS offering (to three more servers). Because of this, we have a separate distributor.
Hope this helps.
Thanks
John.
I'm looking for some help/suggestions for backing up two large databases to one server dedicated to reports. The situation is;
My company has two databases for its internal website. One for the UK and one for Europe. Both are mirrored for DR.
I have a server based in Europe which is dedicated to Microsoft Reporting Services, where we run reports based on the data collected in those two databases.
We do not want to point reporting services to the live databases for performance/security reasons so we currently backup both databases on a daily basis and restore them to our Reporting Services server.
However this means we are putting a strain on our networks by backing up the entire databases, and also the data is only up-to-date by midnight yesterday.
Our aim is to have the data up to date by at least 15 minutes, it has been suggested to look at Log Shipping so I wondered if anyone had any experience in setting this up and what are the pros and cons and whether there is a better alternative?
Any help would be greatley appreciated,
Thanks
We developed a similar environment. We used Mirroring to get the data off to our reporting server and created an automated routine to create Snapshots of the database every 15 min. These snapshots only take 1 to 2 seconds to create in our environment and give us a read only copy of the database. Let me know if you would like me to go into deeper detail.
Note we are running Enterprise on both servers.
Log shipping is a great solution for this. We've got articles about it over at SQLServerPedia's Log Shipping section, and I've got a video tutorial on there talking you through your different options. One thing to keep in mind about log shipping is that when the restores happen, your users will be kicked out of the reporting database.
Replication doesn't have that problem, but replication is nowhere near "set-it-and-forget-it" - it's time-intensive to manage, and isn't quite as reliable as you'd like it to be. In addition, you may have to make schema modifications in order to use replication. Log shipping is more automatic & stable, but at the cost of kicking users out at restore time.
You can minimize that by having two log shipping schedules - one for daytime during business hours, and one for the rest. During business hours, you only restore the data once per hour (or less), and the rest of the time you do it every 15 minutes.
You should look at replication as an alternative to backups.
I would recommend that you look into using Transactional Replication.
It sounds as though you are looking to implement a scenario that is similar to what we are currently implementing ourselves.
We use Transaction Replication (albeit real time, you would most likely wish to synchronize your environment on a less frequent schedule) to offload a copy of our live production database to another server for reporting purposes.
Offloading reporting data is a common replication scenario and is described here in the Microsoft Replication documentation.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151784.aspx
Brent is right in that there is indeed an element of configuration required with Replication, along with security considerations that would need to be addressed however, there are a number of key advantages to using Replication in my opinion, including:
Reduced latency in comparison to log
shipping.
The ability to Publish only the
Articles (tables) that are required
for reporting.
Reduced storage requirements.
Less data being published means less
network traffic.
Access to your reporting
data/database at all times.
For example, in our environment, we decided to replicate only the specific tables (articles) from our production database that we actually require for reporting.
I hope what I have described is clear and makes sense but please do feel free to contact me if you have any queries.
Hi can any body tell me what is use of replication in sqlserver2005.
backup and replicaton looks same?what is diference b/w them
Backups are exactly that: backups. They enable you to recover the data if something bad happens.
Replication is another beast entirely. It basically distributes the data across multiple nodes so that each node has a complete, (close to) up-to-date copy of the data.
There are a number of reasons why you would use replication including, but not limited to:
High availability so that, if one node goes down, other nodes can still service requests.
Geographical distribution, meaning your data can be placed close to those that need it. Clients in Belarus don't need to go all the way to Montana to get the data if you maintain a local replica in Belarus (or somewhere close) - this is for performance. You may have 10,000 clients in Belarus - it's quicker to send one copy over than have all 10,000 request data [although this depends on how often they request data].
Prioritization. If your reporting users (bank management) have a lower service level agreement than your customer-facing staff (bank tellers) [and they should], you can put all the management onto a replica so as not to slow down the primary copy.
Replication is used for a different purpose, for example to make reports without putting that load on the 'real' database.
Replication increases system availability. If one set of database is down, you can serve out of replica.
Backup saves you from catastrophic errors such as human error that dropped the production database. Note that in this case, replication won't save you as it will dutifully replicate drop command.
SQL Server replication is the process of distributing data from a source database to one or more destination databases throughout the enterprise.
Replication is a great solution for maintaining a reporting server.
Clients at the site to which the data is replicated experience improved performance because those clients can access data locally rather than connecting to a remote database server over a network.
Clients at all sites experience improved availability of replicated data. If the local copy of the replicated data is unavailable, clients can still access the remote copy of the data.
Replication: Lots of data, fast and most recent.
Backup/Restore: Some data, perhaps a bit slower, and a specific point in time.
Replication can be used to address a number of different scenarios as detailed below.
Just to be clear however, Replication is not the same as Database Backup
Scenarios:
Server to server: Replicating Data in a Server to Server Environment
Improving Scalability and Availability
Data Warehousing and Reporting
Integrating Data from Multiple Sites(Server)
Integrating Heterogeneous
Data Offloading Batch Processing
Server to client: Replicating Data Between a Server and Clients
Exchanging Data with Mobile Users
Consumer Point of Sale (POS)
Applications Integrating Data from
Multiple Sites (Client)
For a full overview of Microsoft SQL Server Replication see the following Microsoft reference.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151198(SQL.90).aspx
Choose the track that is most appropriate to you (i.e. Developer / Architect) and all shall be revealed :-)
I have the following scenario:
Our system is running a SQL Server Express 2005 database locally (on each users desktop, if you will). The system is storing a lot of production data from a machine. There are high demands on the safety of the data, and doing a backup each night, or even each hour is not enough. We need a backup strategy that will ensure almost instantaneous/continuous backup of the database.
Is there anyone out there that has successfully implemented a system similar to this, and/or has got some ideas of how to accomplish it? The only thing I can think of right now is to have mirrored drives (raid) to hold the data, but that would be complicated and expensive.
I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this, since it is a real issue for me and my company. Thanks in advance!
Update:
I was not clear enough in my description of the scenario. The system is storing data in a vehicle that has no connection to anything. A centralized database is therefor not possible. Neither can we use a standard/enterprise version of SQL Server, since it would be to expensive (each vehicle would need a license). Thanks for your input!
Switch your database into "Full" recovery mode. Do full backup every night and do delta backup after major user action. The delta backups can be done to the flash memory or different hard-drive, and all data can be synchronized with server when online.
Another simple way is to trace all user changes and important data in a text file that stored on a separate drive. If SQL database crashes the user or other operator can repeat steps to restore data.
One way I've seen this done is by using DoubleTake.
I will assume that a central database on a server is not feasible because your systems are running standalone and are not connected to anything. So this is what I would do
Set up RAID on the computer. This insures you against simple disk failure.
Any SQLSever database can be recovered to the point of the last commited transaction if you have a full database backup and a set of transaction logs available. Basically you simply restore the last full backup then apply the transaction logs going forward. See these links.
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/storage/features/article.php/11318_3776361_3
https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://blogs.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/datacenter/?p=132
So what you need to do is set up a periodic full backup of both the database and transaction logs, and more regular transaction log backups (and ensure that your transaction log can never run out of space).
In the event of failure you restore the last full backup, then apply the transaction logs going forward.
Myself, if these are critical systems, I would be inclined to add an additional drive to the system and make sure that the backups are copied over to that. This is because as good as raid is it does sometimes have issues - raid controllers fail, disks get wiped accidentally in parallel, disk failures go unnoticed so your just running on one disk etc. If you ensure backups are copied to a separate disk then you can always recover to the last transaction log backup. You should also ensure tape backups of course, but they are generally a last resort in the event of trouble.
If for some reason you cannot set up raid then you should still install a second disk, but place the database file on one drive and the transaction log on the other and copy backups to both disks. In the event of failure of the C drive, or some other software issue crashing the database you can still recover to the last commited transaction. Failure on the D drive limits you to the last transaction log backup (Oracle used to allow you to mirror the transaction log from the database, which again would completely cover you, but I don't think this facility exists in SQL Server)
If you are looking for a scheduler for SQL Server Express (which doesn't come with one) then I've been using SQLScheduler quite happily without problems, and it's free.
The most obvious answer would be to ditch SQL Server Express running locally and use a single source for your data (such as a standard SQL server install on a central storage location). Unless your system requires individual back ups of every single person's own individual instance of SQL Server Express.
If your requirements are so stringent as to call for instantaneous backups on every operation, you should definitely think about a different method of storage than local instances of SQL Server Express.
Wouldn't it be easier to just use one centralized SQL Server and back that up every hour or so? If you truly need instantaneous backup, your company (which seems not to want to spend money by installing Express on each machine) will need to spring for two servers and two SQL Server Enterprise licenses to implement Mirroring.
Raid isn't that expensive, but it is also not the best option. If you really want high availability data you should upgrade to sql server standard on a remote server where each user connects to and use transaction based replication to an sql server (express) instance on another machine. Raid doesn't always protect you from dataloss. If the data is that important for you then the costs should not be that much of an issue.
Update in response to the question update.
If you can't use remote servers then there a couple of options:
You write a trigger which initiates a backup script on each insert or update and stores it on a seperate harddrive.
You use raid. But beware that if the raid controller fails that you still got a problem.
RAID is not expensive. Use RAID to protect against hard drive failure. You also need monitoring though. No point in having this if you let both drives fail.
Also, implement hourly incremental backups, then daily incremental backups and finally weekly full backups.
You need all of these strategies working together because they protect against different things. RAID does not protect against human or coding errors destroying data. Hourly and weekly backups don't protect against hard drive failure.