I'm not disagreeing Buck, just pointing out the obvious.
Data Warehousing was implemented to retain duplicate (redundant) data.
I had this argument back in the 1980's and 90's.
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Buck Calabro
Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2012 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: replicating an I-series home-grown application to a .net
On 10/5/2012 11:08 AM, Stone, Joel wrote:
OK I'll bite - could you please share what some of the major gotcha's were
with the home grown replication systems that didn't work so well?
1) The 'two of everything' problem. You have two database schemas, two
development teams, two maintenance schedules, two upgrade schedules, two
management teams with different priorities. From now on, whenever one side
wants to change, the other side will need to be consulted.
2) The 'separate but identical' problem. The actual mechanics of
synchronising two databases are not trivial. For example, what happens when
SQL Server is offline for backups, or Patch Tuesday or because the breaker
tripped in the server room? Things happen, one of the machines is going to
be unavailable when the other one wants it. This will force you to create a
process to verify that the databases are in sync. Which probably means that
both databases will need to be taken offline. Of course, once you find an
out of sync condition you'll need a process to re-synch.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5804 - Release Date: 10/02/12