Separate one Availability Group to several AVs?
-
Hi guys
We have 4 servers : Server 1 , Server 2 and HA , DR servers.
I designed 2 Plans to get HA support for my databases .
Which of them are better , And is there any problem in my design ?
Thank you.
-
if DB1, DB2 and DB3 aren't logically grouped then use separate groups for them. If theyre logically grouped, for instance all belonging to one application then use 1 ASO group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
-
Hi Perry
How are you? you wasn't for some days. I hope you enjoyed from you times.
Thank you for your replay.
And in continue :
---------------------------------------
What is the Great benefit about secondary as a DR in Availability Group?
The only difference Between HA And DR (to my mind) is the type of connection : connection with HA is Sync And with DR is Async.
(That Async is in most of the time as Sync.)
- Then If I loss data on primary after some milliseconds , I loss it on the secondary-HA And Secondary-DR.
Then Realy what is the role of DR server in Availability Group?
And
should I run a Log-shipping instead of DR And eliminate the Secondary-DR in Availability Group ?
What is you idea?
Thanks a lot
-
About my question in ?DR?
-
MotivateMan1394 (7/7/2015)
What is the Great benefit about secondary as a DR in Availability Group?The only difference Between HA And DR (to my mind) is the type of connection : connection with HA is Sync And with DR is Async.
(That Async is in most of the time as Sync.)
- Then If I loss data on primary after some milliseconds , I loss it on the secondary-HA And Secondary-DR.
Then Realy what is the role of DR server in Availability Group?
And
should I run a Log-shipping instead of DR And eliminate the Secondary-DR in Availability Group ?
What is you idea?
Thanks a lot
Do you understand what DR is used for as opposed to a HA system?
High availability seeks to mitigate common failures that would normally render a service offline, with HA the service can be quickly resumed providing minimal loss of service.
Disaster Recovery seeks to provide a realtime (or at least as realtime as possible) copy of an application\service, the DR system will usually go extensive periods without being touched except for routine maintenance and checks, it's designed to provide an image of the production system in the event of a total primary or secondary site failure.
Now there are some organisations that have a primary site and a secondary site and maintain the secondary site as a DR, but this is not true DR.
So, the questions
Having a secondary in an AO group on your DR site is perfectly acceptable, in async mode the database may lag behind slightly, this all depends on the infrastructure both on and between the Primary and DR sites.
Running log shipping for DR could potentially provide a larger loss of data. If you only run the copy and restore jobs on the secondary every 2 hours and the primary site burns to the ground and melts all your servers, you've potentially lost 2 hours data. With an async AO secondary it may only be a few minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
-
Hi again
You Define a Disaster Site.
It means Primary site is in Datacenter_1 And Disaster site is in Datacenter_2
And if it would be true , Can I Create Cluster between 2 datacenter without a private lan . (it means use internet for private lan)
This is my Plan for our HA (Alwayson - Availability Group)
Is this Possible :
Thank you
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply