by IvanJo <ivan.jocic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Oct 3, 2008 at 10:07 AM
In article <5D685144-4BC6-4D3D-B0D1-5AA0916A915C@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, =?Utf-
8?B?16nXnNeV157XmQ==?= <@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to reduce to minimum the downtime when I update existent
> artifacts in the biztalk production server.
> Therefore in order to accomplish that, I though it would be easier if
I'll
> have 2 separate biztalk servers that lie on 2 separate sql servers (2
sql
> instances).
>
> The problem is that when I've a service that expects an asynchronous
> response, it could be reach to the message box which didn't start the
> transaction and it will fail with no subscriber failure.
>
> Am I missing something? Is this architecture is wrong?
>
>
> Thanks;
> Shlomi
Hi Shlomi,
you have a rather good article on versioning BizTalk artifacts here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/richardbpi/archive/2005/12/22/506835.aspx
I also agree with Dan's proposal of having only one BizTalk instance
instead of two.
--
Ivan Jocic
blog: http://biztalkia.com/blogs/IvanJo
