Merge replication et al - please help a newbie...

Hi,
Hope you can help me with this one. Advice greatly appreciated. We
have a web application on a server (lets call it server "A"). Its
talking to a DB server (lets call it server "B"). We want to backup
server "B" so that in the event "B" fallsover - the backup server (lets
call it "C") will kick in and carry on from where "B" left off. When
"B" is up it will automatically sync any new transactions logged to "C"
The application on "A" will detect if "B" is down and automatically
switch to "C".
Once "B" is fixed and up and running - "C" will automatically re-sync
with "B" and everything will be grand again.
After looking at various failover models from transactional
replication to log shipping I think that merge replication will do the
trick (because I think it will fulfill all the requirements). The boss
does not want to use failover clustering due to expense.
Can anyone out there please advise on any suggestions/comments/things
to set or watch out for before we begin this process? Any user
experiences/advice much much appreciated.
Thanking you,
Al.For one thing, there is a separate replication newsgroup you might
want to try:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
For a few hints, replication is always about 10x more difficult than
it looks, especially in recovery after problems, and I'd give serious
consideration to transactional replication instead, of course
depending on your database side, transaction rate, etc.
J.
On 28 Aug 2006 08:34:11 -0700, almurph@.altavista.com wrote:

>Hi,
> Hope you can help me with this one. Advice greatly appreciated. We
>have a web application on a server (lets call it server "A"). Its
>talking to a DB server (lets call it server "B"). We want to backup
>server "B" so that in the event "B" fallsover - the backup server (lets
>call it "C") will kick in and carry on from where "B" left off. When
>"B" is up it will automatically sync any new transactions logged to "C"
> The application on "A" will detect if "B" is down and automatically
>switch to "C".
> Once "B" is fixed and up and running - "C" will automatically re-sync
>with "B" and everything will be grand again.
> After looking at various failover models from transactional
>replication to log shipping I think that merge replication will do the
>trick (because I think it will fulfill all the requirements). The boss
>does not want to use failover clustering due to expense.
> Can anyone out there please advise on any suggestions/comments/things
>to set or watch out for before we begin this process? Any user
>experiences/advice much much appreciated.
>Thanking you,
>Al.