We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we can
use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we could
use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction log
shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is important
to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
JohnSince you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You don't
need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
and use it for reporting.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we can
use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we could
use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction log
shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is important
to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
John|||Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
clusters.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
> don't
> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
> and use it for reporting.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
> can
> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
> could
> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
> log
> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
> important
> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
> John
>
>|||Yes, EE is required for database snapshots. Mirroring is available for SE but only on sync mode and
only one REDO thread.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for snapshots? We plan on using
> Standard Edition which will support two clusters.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>|||Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to put
your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
(HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and have
only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware is
usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is fine
for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
clusters.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
> don't
> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
> and use it for reporting.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
> can
> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
> could
> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
> log
> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
> important
> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
> John
>
>|||> Log shipping is fine
> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
Well, you can if you do the restores using STANDBY. But you'd have to kick out the users each time
you want to do the next restore. Which means that you really ... can't use a log shipped database
for reporting ;-).
(Just wanted to mention this before anyone else say "You can". )
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uy0aAMfXIHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
> 2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to put
> your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
> (HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and have
> only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware is
> usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
> will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
> Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
> When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is fine
> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
> snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
> clusters.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
>> don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>
>|||Low-end clusters have definitely gotten cheaper over the past few years.
Look at some of the dual-socket HP stuff and you can put together a good,
stable, basic cluster for under six figures.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uy0aAMfXIHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
> 2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to put
> your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
> (HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and
> have
> only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware
> is
> usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
> will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
> Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
> When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is
> fine
> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
> snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
> clusters.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
>> don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the
>> disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it
>> will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>
>|||Waaaaaay back in 2000, we created our own jobs to logship and only had the
restore command run every 8 hours. All the files were there, and we could
catch the whole thing up in about 20 minutes if the primary went down, but
it was a reporting server all day :)
Same thing could be done here if Log Shipping was desired, as well as
reporting. May not be the most glamorous solution, but it works...
--
Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude
You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/
I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:0875841B-779E-4639-9C7F-31D19FCF060A@.microsoft.com...
>> Log shipping is fine
>> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
> Well, you can if you do the restores using STANDBY. But you'd have to kick
> out the users each time you want to do the next restore. Which means that
> you really ... can't use a log shipped database for reporting ;-).
> (Just wanted to mention this before anyone else say "You can". )
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:uy0aAMfXIHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
>> 2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to
>> put
>> your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
>> (HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and
>> have
>> only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware
>> is
>> usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
>> will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
>> Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
>> When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is
>> fine
>> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
>> snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
>> clusters.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
>> don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very
>> quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the
>> mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the
>> disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot
>> of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on
>> the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it
>> will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost
>> of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>|||Yeah, I figured I'd give him the "short answer". Of course, if you want,
you can have the log shipping sync on a daily schedule and use STANDBY.
That could be a poor man's way of doing mirroring with a daily snapshot.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:0875841B-779E-4639-9C7F-31D19FCF060A@.microsoft.com...
> Log shipping is fine
> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
Well, you can if you do the restores using STANDBY. But you'd have to kick
out the users each time
you want to do the next restore. Which means that you really ... can't use a
log shipped database
for reporting ;-).
(Just wanted to mention this before anyone else say "You can". )
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uy0aAMfXIHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
> 2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to put
> your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
> (HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and
have
> only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware
is
> usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
> will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
> Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
> When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is
fine
> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
> snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
> clusters.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
>> don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the
disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it
will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>
>|||Way back 1.5 years ago I did the same thing for a client with thousands of
databases. Worked like a champ.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:%23v1x6WfXIHA.4696@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Waaaaaay back in 2000, we created our own jobs to logship and only had the
> restore command run every 8 hours. All the files were there, and we could
> catch the whole thing up in about 20 minutes if the primary went down, but
> it was a reporting server all day :)
> Same thing could be done here if Log Shipping was desired, as well as
> reporting. May not be the most glamorous solution, but it works...
> --
> Kevin3NF
> SQL Server dude
> You want fries with that?
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/
> I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
> Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in message news:0875841B-779E-4639-9C7F-31D19FCF060A@.microsoft.com...
>> Log shipping is fine
>> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
>> Well, you can if you do the restores using STANDBY. But you'd have to
>> kick out the users each time you want to do the next restore. Which means
>> that you really ... can't use a log shipped database for reporting ;-).
>> (Just wanted to mention this before anyone else say "You can". )
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:uy0aAMfXIHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, snapshots are supported only in Ent Ed. Also, Std Edition supports
>> 2-node clusters - not "two clusters". It depends on where you want to
>> put
>> your money and what your needs are. When it comes to High Availability
>> (HA), then you often have to go to Ent Ed. If you want clustering and
>> have
>> only 2 nodes, then you can get away with Std Ed, but clustering hardware
>> is
>> usually a bit more expensive and a little trickier to set up. Mirroring
>> will work on regular hardware and can go between dissimilar platforms.
>> Automatic failover, though is available in the Ent Ed.
>> When it comes to reporting, snapshots are your friend. Log shipping is
>> fine
>> for HA, but you can't report off of the destination DB.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23In0b5eXIHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Isn't SQL Server Enterprise edition the only edition that allows for
>> snapshots? We plan on using Standard Edition which will support two
>> clusters.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ee6ZxueXIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Since you are using SQL Server 2005, consider database mirroring. You
>> don't
>> need the fancy hardware that clustering does and failover is very
>> quick -
>> and can be automatic. Also, you can do a database snapshot on the
>> mirror
>> and use it for reporting.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>>
>> "John Wright" <riley_wrightx@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6BTxreXIHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database.
>> This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the
>> disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array
>> to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot
>> of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I
>> have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on
>> the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it
>> will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server
>> we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost
>> of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those
>> who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>|||Just a word of caution to help manage the expectation. If your storage goes
bad, you can for sure leverage certain DBMS features to alleviate the pain.
But there is no magic. SQL Server offers you many good features, but the same
potential storage problems won't magically go away. Due diligence is required
to plan for storage disasters.
Linchi
"John Wright" wrote:
> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the disks
> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it will
> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we can
> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we could
> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction log
> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is important
> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
> John
>
>|||After much reading and study, I think we are going to implement the Database
Mirroring option with a witness to facilitate automatic fail-over.
Operating in High-Availability with full safety and a witness server should
do it for us. The servers are connected via a gigabit connection so latency
should not be a problem. Thanks one and all for the advice.
John
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8570CAA-676A-4FE3-963D-21F4ECAC794B@.microsoft.com...
> Just a word of caution to help manage the expectation. If your storage
> goes
> bad, you can for sure leverage certain DBMS features to alleviate the
> pain.
> But there is no magic. SQL Server offers you many good features, but the
> same
> potential storage problems won't magically go away. Due diligence is
> required
> to plan for storage disasters.
> Linchi
> "John Wright" wrote:
>> We just went through a catastrophic failure of an Oracle database. This
>> database was running on a server with a RAID 5 installed. One of the
>> disks
>> was having read/write errors. When we pulled the disk from the array to
>> have the hot spare kick in, the Oracle server failed and it took a lot of
>> effort to get it back. (I hate oracle).
>> We are moving to SQL Server 2005 and want to avoid this problem. I have
>> been asked to get the specs for a cluster. I have been reading up on the
>> clustering, but came across Transaction Log Shipping. I know that the
>> Transaction Log shipping does not have an automatic fail over, but it
>> will
>> move the transaction log to another server and provide another server we
>> can
>> use for reporting and in the event of a failure on the main server, we
>> could
>> use the other server until we can bring it up on line.
>> What in your opinion would be a better solution, cluster or transaction
>> log
>> shipping? All of our programs will be using this data, and it is
>> important
>> to recover from a disaster like this as quickly as possible. The cost of
>> clustering may be preventative, so I would like your input for those who
>> have used one or both methods for pros and cons. Thanks.
>> John
>>
