sql 2005 active/passive cluster options

#1

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#2

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#3

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#4

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#5

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#6

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#7

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#8

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#9

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!

#10

You might be able to set up log shipping to another standalone, but that
would require re-pointing the application to the standby server when the
main one goes down. Re-pointing afgter fixing the main is kind of a pain as
well.

--

Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude

You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/

I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!