![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |