May 30, 2006 at 6:32 am
Hello and I apologize if this seems obvious but I have to ask.....
A guy I work with wants to set up a second SQL 2000 server in a separate geographic location and use "Merge Replication". In addition he thinks that if he sets up a second A record in his DNS for that other SQL Server that he could have the capability for an almost automatic failover. I know that you can 'load balance' a webserver this way and I know that this is not IDEAL for a SQL Server but is there anything stopping him from doing this? I just need someone's professional opinion to make sure he's not entirely crazy.
Thanks
Greg
June 2, 2006 at 8:00 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
June 5, 2006 at 7:47 am
Let me see if I understand the situation. Server A has ip 192.168.0.1 with a DNS record of http://www.database.com and Server B (standby) has Ip 192.168.0.2. Admin wants to set up a second A recond to point http://www.database.com to 192.168.0.2 in addition to 192.168.0.1. This will not work in a standby situation because DNS would return the IPs in an alternating round robin fashion regardless to whether server b is up and running or not.
In order for Server B to serve as a hot standby you should consider using a VIP with Server A and B behind it.
Then again maybe I did not understand the question.
June 5, 2006 at 8:09 am
Ron,
You did understand the question perfectly. Unfortunately, since both these servers are up and running and will be replicating between the two sites via merge replication, my 'boss' thinks that it will be ok since even if the IP's are served up in round robin fashion that the databases will both get updated. I think he's off his rocker. There are too many issues with trying to rely on merge replication.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions and I really appreicate the reply.
Greg
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply