April 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
Good day forumites,
I am looking into implementing a H A solution for my company. Its in the transition of being a midsized company from a small company. I just wanted to consult the experts on here before I make a decision on which type I should implement. We need a standby server pretty much that automatically gets switched to in the event of anything happening to the trusted server. What would be the best type to go with? Replication, Clustering, Mirroring ?? Any suggestions would be appreciated. What has worked best for you guys? I know this might also be a "it depends" question. 🙂
April 6, 2010 at 11:31 am
iruagawal (4/6/2010)
What would be the best type to go with? Replication, Clustering, Mirroring ??
I think mirorring would suit best. If the company wants to shell out little more money, i would prefer clustering at the primary site along with Mirroring as a DR solution.
April 6, 2010 at 11:37 am
Replication can be very have very high administrative overhead (plus if a table has no PK, it cannot be replicated)
Clustering is HA, but not DR. Clustering suffers from a single point-of-failure of the shared disks.
Mirroring and log-shipping are best for a two DC DR solution, neither is difficult to set up.
Best solution
DC1: Cluster
DC2: Mirrored server from DC1, stand-alone server does not need to have the horsepower of the servers in DC1
/* ----------------------------- */
Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
April 6, 2010 at 5:24 pm
if using vlan, clustering could be considered as a DR solution.
BTW, based on this link, http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/353894/add-support-for-multi-subnet-clusters, multi-subnet will be supported soon.
Welcome to my website: DB Expert
April 7, 2010 at 7:14 am
The answer are still the same "It depends."
What HA/DR technique are you comfortable with, is there an in house expert on that technology, or do you rely on consultant?
How much money does your company wants to spend.
What are your service level agreement?
--sopheap
April 7, 2010 at 9:34 am
Thanks for the responses guys, as far as the DR/HA technique, it will be done by someone learning from scratch. No consultants. From what Ive read thus far, seems like mirroring might be the way to go?
April 21, 2010 at 9:57 am
Microsoft has made Clustering in windows 2008 very trivial. However it depends on the cost of SQL enterprise license. Can you afford 35K per proc if yes you should go with clustering benefit of the clustering less over head in managing the server. With mirroring that failover will work in an automated way but you still have script starting of the SQL jobs and also make sure that login information is similar to the principle server.
April 21, 2010 at 11:18 am
if you only want a 2 node cluster Std edition should suffice. You will lose a few other features but its still an option
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
April 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Great I did not know that. I just saw it on microsoft edition doc.:-D
April 22, 2010 at 7:40 am
We use clustering and log shipping to a remote site. This has worked very well for us and both are pretty straight forward to setup and maintain.
But in the end, it all comes down to; how much money you can spend, how much down time is acceptable, how much data lose is acceptable. Because all 3 of those are on a sliding scale, as one goes up the others go down. Hope this helps.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply