October 15, 2002 at 8:40 am
We currently use Marathon Endurance Server to host our SQL Server databases as clustering was far more difficult to install, configure and use.
The system is actively redundant and so fault tolerant. It appears just like a normal NT box to the administrator / developer but is supposed to be as reliable as a UNIX box (in our experience it is).
Is anyone out there doing likewise or know of any issues?
Nigel Moore
======================
October 25, 2002 at 12:00 pm
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
October 28, 2002 at 11:31 am
I have never heard of marathon endurance server before, I will be more than happy to do some digging and see if anyone has had any problems.
Cheers,
Wes
October 28, 2002 at 1:10 pm
Heard good things about Marathon. Kind of $$ for most people, IMHO.
Interested to hear how it's working for you.
Steve Jones
November 4, 2002 at 1:06 pm
Having implemented a number of DR and fault tolerant solutions I sure would like to hear the arguments which led to you to believe that "clustering was far more difficult to install, configure and use." I know that the Marathon Servers offer a fault tolerant solution within seconds compare to Clustering which is around a minute, but does it justify the ROI?
I'm not arguing, just curious as to what issues came up. Does your app truly depend on that turnaround time? What is in place for DR?
Regards,
John Zacharkan
John Zacharkan
John Zacharkan
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply