May 3, 2007 at 6:02 am
Hi all,
Is it possible to specify which ip address sql server should use to connect to another sql server?
Best regards,
Nicklas
May 3, 2007 at 8:07 am
What do you mean? Through a linked server?
May 3, 2007 at 8:24 am
Of course, you can. You can find the IPs if you can RDP to the server. You can either use ipconfig from the prompt command window for a standalone server or access cluster administrator to find them out.
If you do not have authority, you can ask your windows team to find it out.
May 4, 2007 at 9:43 am
Why by IP address ? It is much more flexible to connect to any computer on a network via DNS name for a number of reasons.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
May 4, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I suppose the usefulness would depend on your specific needs.
One method would be to use the client network to specify an alias for the target server. Another would be to add an entry in the HOSTS file (located in ...\System32\drivers\etc\hosts). A linked server can also be used to accomplish this.
If you indicate the reason why you need to do this, it may be possible to suggest the best way.
May 4, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Jeff, I still think that DNS and DNS aliasing are the answer since it is a global solution with a change in one place only whereas HOSTS entries are one to a computer snd hence a maintenance nightmare. However I still agree that Nicklas needs to provide a reason for what he wants to do in order to for the community to try to provide suggestions for a solution.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
May 4, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I'm in agreement with you, Rudy. I would always recommend using DNS unless there were some very strange things happening in the network. I might also add that in order to recognize when such extreme measures must be taken, the DBA is probably a mad scientist that already knows how to do the workarounds.
May 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/4159/ABBY.WAV
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
May 7, 2007 at 12:19 am
Sorry for my insufficient description of my problem…
I will try to explain it a little bit better…
We have two database servers (one in city A and one in city B). Now, our client want to use log shipping between these two servers, but the problem is that if we use log shipping all other traffic will be suffering. They have now installed a second connection between the two locations. They want to use one of the connections for log shipping and the other connection for all other traffic. Is this possible to accomplish?
Best regards, (and thanks for all reply’s…)
Nicklas
May 7, 2007 at 4:29 am
Hi,
that is certainly possible, at least if you use custom logshipping.
The linking of the servers may be needed for starting jobs or executing procedures, and that (as far as i know) must be done using names.
The copying process on the other hand can be done using \\ip-adress\share.
In a custom logshipping procedure you can code in the ip adresses, i don't know if it's possible in an out-of-the-box logshipping (never done that...)
regards
karl
Best regards
karl
May 7, 2007 at 6:55 am
It's more a networking problem. If you want to direct the traffic on one network segment, make sure that your network administrator routes the traffic on the second connection.
May 8, 2007 at 4:25 am
Hello,
specify the new record on DNS (or HOST file), otherwise SQL server cannot see the other one.
To see if SQL server sees the other one is to try to register, if you receive an error for bad login it means that you have DNS problem.
May 8, 2007 at 8:05 am
You still need to separate the traffic on the network to get Log shipping to run over a second network. If you have a second link, is it network addressed the same as the primary? Meaning is all traffic across both links?
I've done something similar, but we dual-homed both servers (2 NICs) and used a separate IP network for the second one. So most SQL traffic was on 192.168.2.xx and the second link was 192.168.3.xxx. We then connected the servers through the .3 network for backup traffic.
Note: They could still connect through the .2 network.
May 9, 2007 at 12:35 am
Thanks for all answers... (I think we will be able to solve it now...)
Best regards,
Nicklas
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply