Forum Moderators: open
I have three offices all running independently with their own servers. I want us all to be on a single server so we can all access a single set of customer records, payables, notes etc. all the things you can benifit from on a single system instead of three.
I need to do a cost analysis particularly from a cost justification viewpoint. How and why does it pay to a network multiple locations?
The idea of having operating data near real time is very appealing but not absolutely needed. Help me choose.
Implementing Multi site sql server , you would probably need at least 2 staff members trained to manage it,
I think you will find that what you are proposing is seldom done. The cost of duplicating the equipment is less than the cost of the telecom to connect them at "real-time" speeds. I think most would duplicate the databases locally and sync them.
Further, the Internet (or even private connectivity) still is not completely reliable.
One factor is where your applications are and what they do. If you have applications that run on desktops, some of which suck a considerable data through (as in doing searches on unindexed rows) then your idea is a non-starter. If you are exclusively using browser applications, which can run on a server located where your database is, then perhaps this is a reasonable way to go.
Point-to-point circuits are expensive. Avoid them if you can. As well, avoid the conventional "T-1/T-3" etc. Internet connections. These are god-awful expensive. The best deal - if you can get them - are "business" accounts with a cable or DSL operator, then use VPN hardware to connect the sites. (DSL is still difficult to get true high-speed for business accounts, though. Cable is great, IF it runs into your building.) You do need the "business" accounts, as the asymertrical bandwidth of consumer accounts is unsuitable, as well as business use being in violation of their TOS.
