![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi, Our customer wants to go from a standalone SQL server implementation to a clustered one. We recommended Active/Passive for them since they do not have a heavy load, they just wnat redundancy. When they tested their client application against the Active/Passive cluster server they found out (as expected) that their client application that was accessing the SQL server failed when the cluster failover occured (the connection was lost when they were doing thie bulk insert). I explained they needed to modify their application to re-connect to the cluster and retry the transaction. They dont like this. The question I have is: Would an Active/Active implentation prevent a customer from having to modify their software? If a server fails will the client application continue to do the bulk insert uninterrupted? Thanks! |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
I would like to know the steps necessary to switch from an Active/Passive cluster to an Active/Active one. From the messages I have been reading, it sounds like the only difference is that Active/Active services clients from two different SQL instances. Is |
|
I have a Windows 2003 Enterprise Server Active/Passive cluster setup currently. I don't know how to change the model from A/P to A/A on the OS. |
|
Please let me know, Thanks. ************************************************** ******************** Sent via Fuzzy Software @ http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/ Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources... |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |