November 2, 2017 at 9:34 am
My company is considering a new database server, and I'm exploring if it's possible to use Standard edition instead of Enterprise. We'd like to have automatic failover, and the Basic Availability Group looks good for that. It has the limitation of one db per group. I'm fine with that, I can script the creation of the groups. But, our network admins don't want to set up 26 different IP addresses to start, and then add more as databases are added. Adding dbs is a rare event for us, like once a year or less.
I know very little about networking. Is there something I could suggest to make their job easier? (thereby lowering their resistance to the project) Or, is setting up the IPs and DNS not a big deal, and they should just be told to do it?
November 2, 2017 at 10:26 am
Rekonn - Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:34 AMMy company is considering a new database server, and I'm exploring if it's possible to use Standard edition instead of Enterprise. We'd like to have automatic failover, and the Basic Availability Group looks good for that. It has the limitation of one db per group. I'm fine with that, I can script the creation of the groups. But, our network admins don't want to set up 26 different IP addresses to start, and then add more as databases are added. Adding dbs is a rare event for us, like once a year or less.I know very little about networking. Is there something I could suggest to make their job easier? (thereby lowering their resistance to the project) Or, is setting up the IPs and DNS not a big deal, and they should just be told to do it?
Are any of your databases dependent on each other? If so, automatic failover, potentially of only a single DB, might not be a good option.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
- Martin Rees
The absence of consumable DDL, sample data and desired results is, however, evidence of the absence of my response
- Phil Parkin
November 2, 2017 at 10:28 am
Rekonn - Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:34 AMMy company is considering a new database server, and I'm exploring if it's possible to use Standard edition instead of Enterprise. We'd like to have automatic failover, and the Basic Availability Group looks good for that. It has the limitation of one db per group. I'm fine with that, I can script the creation of the groups. But, our network admins don't want to set up 26 different IP addresses to start, and then add more as databases are added. Adding dbs is a rare event for us, like once a year or less.I know very little about networking. Is there something I could suggest to make their job easier? (thereby lowering their resistance to the project) Or, is setting up the IPs and DNS not a big deal, and they should just be told to do it?
and they should just be told to do it
Well, if business requires HA and your company decide to go with the BAG, then yes, that should be the end of it, add IP or the functionality won't work.
26 IPs is really not that much. I don't see the issue, sounds like politics and red-tape more than anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thing is addressing problems that dont exist. Its solution-ism at its worst. We are dumbing down machines that are inherently superior. - Gilfoyle
November 2, 2017 at 10:56 am
Phil Parkin - Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:26 AMRekonn - Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:34 AMMy company is considering a new database server, and I'm exploring if it's possible to use Standard edition instead of Enterprise. We'd like to have automatic failover, and the Basic Availability Group looks good for that. It has the limitation of one db per group. I'm fine with that, I can script the creation of the groups. But, our network admins don't want to set up 26 different IP addresses to start, and then add more as databases are added. Adding dbs is a rare event for us, like once a year or less.I know very little about networking. Is there something I could suggest to make their job easier? (thereby lowering their resistance to the project) Or, is setting up the IPs and DNS not a big deal, and they should just be told to do it?
Are any of your databases dependent on each other? If so, automatic failover, potentially of only a single DB, might not be a good option.
Yes, we effectively have 13 pairs of databases. In general, we have jobs that run at various times a day that read data from the first db in a pair, and save the data as fact and dimension tables in the second db. Thanks for raising this, think I need to look into combining the pairs to wind up with only 13 independent databases.
November 2, 2017 at 11:59 am
Thomas Russ has posted a creative way of dealing with multiple BAGs sometime in 2016. Just wanted to make sure, you read this article before drawing any conclusions...
https://sqljudo.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/a-group-of-basic-availability-groups/
November 2, 2017 at 1:24 pm
Sreekanth B - Thursday, November 2, 2017 11:59 AMThomas Russ has posted a creative way of dealing with multiple BAGs sometime in 2016. Just wanted to make sure, you read this article before drawing any conclusions...
https://sqljudo.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/a-group-of-basic-availability-groups/
Interesting!
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply