dbTalk Databases Forums  

Cluster or Mirror

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering


Discuss Cluster or Mirror in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
christophe
 
Posts: n/a

Default Cluster or Mirror - 10-07-2004 , 01:21 PM






Hi,

I'm currently looking in the possiblities for a SQL server install. The web
project needs a SQL database with a high availability. Speed and size are not
that important as the load will be medium (especially for the new enterprise
class servers), but it cannot eb offline for more then minutes. Assuming
there is suffient budget what option would be preferred:
HP DL380 cluster with SAN : diskset in SAN RAID 1+0 with SQL enterprise and
SQL virtual server setup
OR
2x Fully redundent HP DL380's with own diskset (RAID 1+0), one active SQL
Std, and one passive. Replication using DoubleTake or Neverfail alikes.
The fail-switch should also be automatic and should react within max 5
minutes.

Any idea's pro + cons?

Thanks

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Darryl Pollock
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Cluster or Mirror - 10-07-2004 , 05:19 PM






Have you looked at Log Shipping as an alternative?
Regards

Darryl Pollock

Squirrel Consulting

www.remotesquirrel.com - Performance Monitoring - Anytime ! Anywhere!


"christophe" <christophe (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:
Hi,

I'm currently looking in the possiblities for a SQL server install. The
web
project needs a SQL database with a high availability. Speed and size are
not
that important as the load will be medium (especially for the new
enterprise
class servers), but it cannot eb offline for more then minutes. Assuming
there is suffient budget what option would be preferred:
HP DL380 cluster with SAN : diskset in SAN RAID 1+0 with SQL enterprise
and
SQL virtual server setup
OR
2x Fully redundent HP DL380's with own diskset (RAID 1+0), one active SQL
Std, and one passive. Replication using DoubleTake or Neverfail alikes.
The fail-switch should also be automatic and should react within max 5
minutes.

Any idea's pro + cons?

Thanks



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old   
christophe
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Cluster or Mirror - 10-08-2004 , 02:37 AM



yes, but the data can only be out of sync for max a few minutes and from what
I read replication is faster for something like that. I also need an
automated switch to the standby server in case of a failure of the primary
server. The application only knows 1 SQL server connection.

"Darryl Pollock" wrote:

Quote:
Have you looked at Log Shipping as an alternative?
Regards

Darryl Pollock

Squirrel Consulting

www.remotesquirrel.com - Performance Monitoring - Anytime ! Anywhere!


"christophe" <christophe (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:250E4D88-6464-4E88-80AA-E0D8262B4CD1 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
Hi,

I'm currently looking in the possiblities for a SQL server install. The
web
project needs a SQL database with a high availability. Speed and size are
not
that important as the load will be medium (especially for the new
enterprise
class servers), but it cannot eb offline for more then minutes. Assuming
there is suffient budget what option would be preferred:
HP DL380 cluster with SAN : diskset in SAN RAID 1+0 with SQL enterprise
and
SQL virtual server setup
OR
2x Fully redundent HP DL380's with own diskset (RAID 1+0), one active SQL
Std, and one passive. Replication using DoubleTake or Neverfail alikes.
The fail-switch should also be automatic and should react within max 5
minutes.

Any idea's pro + cons?

Thanks




Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old   
Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Cluster or Mirror - 10-11-2004 , 09:55 AM



Hi

Just remember, Cluster or disk/volume replication level does not protect you
against database/disk corruption. The corruption is faithfully propogated to
the other drives in the case of replication and is on the single copy on the
SAN.

For SQL 2000, Microsoft Windows Clustering is the way for the least downtime
and no human intervention is required. Clusters typically fail over in <20
seconds, depending on how many transactions need to rolled forward/back.

Regards
Mike

"christophe" wrote:

Quote:
yes, but the data can only be out of sync for max a few minutes and from what
I read replication is faster for something like that. I also need an
automated switch to the standby server in case of a failure of the primary
server. The application only knows 1 SQL server connection.

"Darryl Pollock" wrote:

Have you looked at Log Shipping as an alternative?
Regards

Darryl Pollock

Squirrel Consulting

www.remotesquirrel.com - Performance Monitoring - Anytime ! Anywhere!


"christophe" <christophe (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:250E4D88-6464-4E88-80AA-E0D8262B4CD1 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
Hi,

I'm currently looking in the possiblities for a SQL server install. The
web
project needs a SQL database with a high availability. Speed and size are
not
that important as the load will be medium (especially for the new
enterprise
class servers), but it cannot eb offline for more then minutes. Assuming
there is suffient budget what option would be preferred:
HP DL380 cluster with SAN : diskset in SAN RAID 1+0 with SQL enterprise
and
SQL virtual server setup
OR
2x Fully redundent HP DL380's with own diskset (RAID 1+0), one active SQL
Std, and one passive. Replication using DoubleTake or Neverfail alikes.
The fail-switch should also be automatic and should react within max 5
minutes.

Any idea's pro + cons?

Thanks




Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old   
Hilary Cotter
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Cluster or Mirror - 10-12-2004 , 07:52 AM



I would argue that the time required to failover is a function of how long
it takes for the transaction log to be applied from the failed node to the
failed over node.

For most production systems with VLDBs you should be dumping the log very
frequently, ie under 5 minutes.

While 20 s is an often quoted statistic, I think 1 - 2 minutes might be more
realistic.
--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html


"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:
Hi

Just remember, Cluster or disk/volume replication level does not protect
you
against database/disk corruption. The corruption is faithfully propogated
to
the other drives in the case of replication and is on the single copy on
the
SAN.

For SQL 2000, Microsoft Windows Clustering is the way for the least
downtime
and no human intervention is required. Clusters typically fail over in <20
seconds, depending on how many transactions need to rolled forward/back.

Regards
Mike

"christophe" wrote:

yes, but the data can only be out of sync for max a few minutes and from
what
I read replication is faster for something like that. I also need an
automated switch to the standby server in case of a failure of the
primary
server. The application only knows 1 SQL server connection.

"Darryl Pollock" wrote:

Have you looked at Log Shipping as an alternative?
Regards

Darryl Pollock

Squirrel Consulting

www.remotesquirrel.com - Performance Monitoring - Anytime ! Anywhere!


"christophe" <christophe (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:250E4D88-6464-4E88-80AA-E0D8262B4CD1 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
Hi,

I'm currently looking in the possiblities for a SQL server install.
The
web
project needs a SQL database with a high availability. Speed and
size are
not
that important as the load will be medium (especially for the new
enterprise
class servers), but it cannot eb offline for more then minutes.
Assuming
there is suffient budget what option would be preferred:
HP DL380 cluster with SAN : diskset in SAN RAID 1+0 with SQL
enterprise
and
SQL virtual server setup
OR
2x Fully redundent HP DL380's with own diskset (RAID 1+0), one
active SQL
Std, and one passive. Replication using DoubleTake or Neverfail
alikes.
The fail-switch should also be automatic and should react within max
5
minutes.

Any idea's pro + cons?

Thanks






Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.