SQL 2005 Transactional Replication Critcal Performance

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

SQL-Server-2005

Got a bit of an odd one, that I don't understand.

We have a transactional publication that keeps popping up with "critical" performance in Replication Monitor. However, it's a little used table, and when you view the details on the "Subscription Watch List" tab, it shows there's no undistributed commands. There's no messages in the "Publisher to Distribution History" or "Distributor To Subscriber History".

I've even reinitialised the snapshot. So as far as I can tell, there should be no reason this should pop up as being critical performance.

Can anybody suggest other places to look?

Thanks

Posted 17-Jun-12 22:03pm

MarqW

Add a Solution

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

barneyman · Answer 1 · 2012-06-17T22:06:00

Solution 1

I've seen this on replicas that are scheduled, i.e. they don't continually replicate - even tho' the source table wasn't moving ...

I could never work out how to change the schedule, so it fell in the 'meh' bin

Posted 17-Jun-12 22:06pm

barneyman