|
|
Posted by John Morgan on 01/30/07 13:17
Since my first message I have investigated replication further and it
does not seem as complicated as first thought and I have successfully
carried out a snapshot replication on my local server.
the main disadvantage of replication now seems to be that my online
sql database provider charges $50 for providing a replication facility
(presumably for enabling a push subscription)
The payment is not significant providing replication is the way to to
go for the occasional updating of an online server from my local
server.
Best wishes, John Morgan
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:32:40 GMT, John Morgan <jfm@XXwoodlander.co.uk>
wrote:
>I have my first small SQl Server 2005 database developed on my local
>server and I have also its equivalent as an online database.
>
>I wish to update the local database (using and asp.net interface) and
>then to upload the data (at least the amended data, but given the
>small size all data should be no trouble) to the online database.
>
>I think replication is the straight answer but I have no experience of
>this and I am wondering what else I might use which might be less
>complicated. One solution is DTS (using SQL 2000 terms) but i am not
>sure if I can set this up (1) to overwrite existing tables and (2) not
>to seemingly remove identity attributes from fields set as identities.
>
>I know there are other possibilities but I would be glad of advice as
>to the likely best method for a small database updated perhaps once
>weekly or at less frequent intervals,
>
>Best wishes, John Morgan
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|