On 8/6/22 15:45, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2022-08-06 15:06:06 -0500, Ron wrote:
On 8/6/22 03:40, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Using sync replication on an unstable link is probably not a good idea.
Every time the link goes down, A freezes. Is this what you want?
I had to fight my end users about how to replicate a SQL Server database
across a WAN. They of course wanted it synchronously replicated, but I
insisted that was a horrible idea, for the exact reason you mentioned
(though it "only" freezes when the untransmitted transmitted transaction
logs fill of the primary database's disk).
Doesn't synchronous mean that a commit only returns when the transaction
has been replicated?
Correct. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.
Probably that transaction log data gets queued up and not deleted if it
can't send the data across.
(The database can work on other transactions in the meantime, but that
client is blocked.)
Eventually any client doing writes blocks. Readers might block if a writer
took an exclusive lock,
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
