The client wanted log shipping basically because it is old, tried and true. They have limited DBA, so didn't want anything more complex (complex relative to their knowledge).
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether you reseed all 100GB depends on your connection (how quickly you > can replicate everything vs. how quickly you’re restoring your primary DB). > Restoring your primary means you need to re-replicate everything. > > > > That said, do you need to use Log Shipping? It’s a pretty old technology, > and depending on what your requirements are (and your SQL Server versions), > there’s availability groups, mirroring, transactional replication etc. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Lundy > *Sent:* Saturday, 9 August 2014 7:35 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Semi OT: SQL log shipping > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm (unfortunately) the DBA for a client. I'm only an accidental DBA. > > > > We are setting up log shipping for a soon to be critical database. All > seems to be working fine. > > > > During the pre go-live testing, we will be refreshing the test data in the > db several times. The database is about 100G. > > > > When we refresh (in other words I will be restoring the database), should > we just let all 100 G replicate as transactions through the log shipping? > Or break shipping, restore, reseed shipping? Or does it matter? > > > > Actually I think I'm just over analyzing, but would be interested in your > thoughts. > > >
