|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:57 PM
Points: 1,558,
Visits: 1,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say Hey Kid
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 26, 2013 11:57 AM
Points: 708,
Visits: 660
|
|
So....
Why not just fail over to the secondary full time, so that you can upgrade the primary offline. If all goes well, fail back to the primary, if not, the secondary keeps on running until the issues are resolved? No down time at all.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:07 PM
Points: 2,386,
Visits: 2,656
|
|
Dan Guzman - Not the MVP (8/20/2010) So....
Why not just fail over to the secondary full time, so that you can upgrade the primary offline. If all goes well, fail back to the primary, if not, the secondary keeps on running until the issues are resolved? No down time at all.
You would have to break mirroring or log shipping in order to have both primary and secondary databases online at the same time. How would you reconcile the difference between the primary which has the code upgrade applied and the secondary which has had user transactions running against it?
|
|
|
|
|
Say Hey Kid
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 26, 2013 11:57 AM
Points: 708,
Visits: 660
|
|
| Duh. Yes, of course, you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:29 PM
Points: 138,
Visits: 236
|
|
| Same also applies for LS in case of Recovery model is full, it can hold transactions till log file grows. Only +ve point of LS over log size is that it uses Bulk Load recovery model.
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
        
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:33 AM
Points: 10,989,
Visits: 10,529
|
|
A very good article - I have no idea why it's rating is so low. Well done.
Paul White SQL Server MVP SQLblog.com @SQL_Kiwi
|
|
|
|