April 14, 2006 at 11:53 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bahmed/businesscontinuityforsqlserverswithastandbyapproac.asp
April 26, 2006 at 8:45 am
Thanks for the effort, but this was a little too much of an ad.
April 26, 2006 at 9:06 am
Nice ad.
Student of SQL and Golf, Master of Neither
April 26, 2006 at 10:12 am
I don't read sqlservercentral.com articles to be sold a product. Buy advertising space. If I am looking for a 3rd party product to provide continuity I will do research on the products. The least you could have done was honestly compare ALL products that provide this functionality.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
April 26, 2006 at 11:20 am
Agreed. You should at least have a disclaimer up front saying the "article" was written by a Sonasoft executive...
Very disappointed.
April 26, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Microsoft Log Shipping is quoted as hot standby. Authors do not know the difference between warm and hot standby. Exhibited poor understanding of concepts, too much markting spin in the name of business continuity. All it does is, recovering the backup to a remote (standby) machine. Ask yourself how much of 99.999 it meets?
April 26, 2006 at 5:03 pm
I tend to agree with Kumar. The authors do not demonstrate a good understanding of clustering or log shipping. If you are not familiar with the MS options, you may well think that this is an unbiased article.
e.g. in clustering, load balancing is not a feature of clustering software as implied by this article. The designer of the cluster does this by implementing appropriate hardware and configuring the nodes of the cluster so that load is shared apropriately across the cluster.
And whilst an additional NIC on each node is recommended and strictly speaking it is an extra cost, when compared to the hardware typically used in a cluster, the cost of an extra NIC really is insignificant.
The discussion on storage arrays is also a bit light. Most storage arrays worth using come with cache that makes the performance of the array pretty impressive. Many storage arrays have battery backed cache that is used to cache writes to the array further improving performance.
And, looking at the architecture of of the "Sonasoft Standby Solution", it looks a lot like SQL 2005 Database Mirroring. So if you are using or planning to use SQL2005, have a look at Database Mirroring.
April 27, 2006 at 8:09 am
Also published as a White Paper on SonaSoft's site:
http://www.sonasoft.com/pdf/DRandBCforSQLServersThruStandby.pdf
Clearly a marketing tool designed to sell their software, rather than an objective discussion of the topic.
-- J.Kozloski, MCDBA, MCITP
May 1, 2006 at 6:39 am
One advantage of the Sonasoft product is that it supports a mixed environment of SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005. But the Sonasoft is a bit expensive.
Best regards
Henrik Staun Poulsen, MCDBA, Stovi Software
May 2, 2006 at 11:42 am
Mirroring in SQL2005 looks to me like the best, cheapest option for failover if you can't afford to go enterprise (which many of my clients can't).
To not mention it and then have 2 thirds of the article on a proprietary product...
Shame on you SQLServerCentral. You just went down in my estimations.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply