Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
running fine.

I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup for
a new client and am faced with what method to go with?

What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering and
log shipping?

To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I do
not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
licenses, so that should cut down some expense.

Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?

To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive i.e.
2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case if
all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference is
between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?

Any advice here is much appreciated.

thanks!

P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k, but
migrate to 2005 when it releases.

Careful with the term active/passive. We now use single-instance or
multi-instance. If you have multi-instance, this means you have more than
one instance in the cluster, likely one instance per node. The cluster
basically takes care of failover on its own. With log-shipping, there is
manual intervention and users are down until you notice the problem, hop in
your car and drive to the data centre.

Log shipping is good for disaster recovery, where you need to establish a
remote DR site.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param (AT) community (DOT) nospam> wrote

Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
running fine.

I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup for
a new client and am faced with what method to go with?

What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering and
log shipping?

To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I do
not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
licenses, so that should cut down some expense.

Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?

To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive i.e.
2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case if
all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference is
between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?

Any advice here is much appreciated.

thanks!

P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k, but
migrate to 2005 when it releases.

Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
network and update a dns record to point the database server to the standby
server and you are done


"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote

As long as you _can_ remote in....

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param (AT) community (DOT) nospam> wrote

Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
network and update a dns record to point the database server to the standby
server and you are done


"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote

So assuming I could remote in, what other benefits do clustering provide me
over log shipping? Is down time the only one?

thanks

"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote

In addition to down-time reduction, you have the benefit of faster upgrades
while keeping the system up. For example, let's say you need to apply a
service pack to the OS. Assuming that things are running on node 1, apply
the SP to node 2, move the groups to node 2 and then apply the SP to node 1.
Total down time is the time it took to move the groups (under 1 min). Also,
you could add a node and remove a node to the cluster to upgrade the
hardware (assuming Windows 2000 Data Centre or Windows 2003 Enterprise).

You can run, say, 1 SQL instance on 1 node and another instance on the
other. While not load-balancing in the purest sense of the term, this does
distribute the workload.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param (AT) community (DOT) nospam> wrote

So assuming I could remote in, what other benefits do clustering provide me
over log shipping? Is down time the only one?

thanks

"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote