Re: [Emerald] SQL Backup vs. Replication

Dale E. Reed Jr. ( (no email) )
Thu, 18 May 2000 09:12:23 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Randy Martin: "Fwd: [Emerald] Bug in Emerald??"
Next message: Dale E. Reed Jr.: "Re: [Emerald] No changes.txt in"
Maybe in reply to: NCKCN: "[Emerald] SQL Backup vs. Replication"

NCKCN wrote:
>
> Which is better, doing SQL server backups or SQL server replication on the
> Emerald Database? From what I've seen, I tend to think that replication
> would impose quite a bit of needless overhead. Then if there were
> corruptions, wouldn't that just be replicated over to the other SQL server?

In most cases replication will cause more problems/heahaches than the
benefit of it. I recommend a backup 1-2 times a day. Then restore that
backup to another server (or atleast have the file copired to a second
server each night) that you can use as a backup server.

Dale E. Reed Jr. Emerald and RadiusNT/X__________________________________________IEA Software, Inc. www.iea-software.com

For more information about this list (including removal) go to:http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart

Previous message: Randy Martin: "Fwd: [Emerald] Bug in Emerald??"
Next message: Dale E. Reed Jr.: "Re: [Emerald] No changes.txt in"
Maybe in reply to: NCKCN: "[Emerald] SQL Backup vs. Replication"