Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


SQL Server 2000 - Redundancy via Replication


SQL Server 2000 - Redundancy via Replication

Author
Message
pfelsted
pfelsted
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2 Visits: 2
Hello,
We are trying to increase our redundancy and would like to use SQL Server replication to do this. We have about 5 database servers that contain around 1000 databases. Some of these databases are used more often than others. We are a complete Windows shop.

The idea is to create a new big server that can hold all of the databases and have these be slaves of the databases on the 5 other machines. So all data will be replicated over to this new server. If we loose one of the 5 servers our application will immediately switch over and start using the slave version of the database until we can get the other server back up and running. Our application is a mostly read with small updates (occasionally large updates) Does any know if this will work? Are there better ways of accomplishing our goals of redundancy? Are there any links to articles about this?

Thanks,
Pat
george sibbald
george sibbald
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 6324 Visits: 13686
Thats a big question with no easy answer. Two things I would say though, I wouldn't want to start from where you are and replication would be my last choice for a high availability solution. It would be a nightmare to set up and maintain for 1000 databases.

the closest to your solution of 5 masters and 1 slave server is to set up a mixture of log shipping or full database restores depending on the recovery needs of the individual databases. This will also be labour intensive to set up but once in place easy to maintain and its cheap.

However with that number of databases to achieve redundancy I think you should be looking at either clustering or moving onto VMs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
pfelsted
pfelsted
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2 Visits: 2
Thanks for your reponse.

When you say clustering are you referring to a specific product? If so what product is this? With VMs how do you acheive redundancy? You will still need either replcation or backups/restore scripts right?
george sibbald
george sibbald
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 6324 Visits: 13686
the 'product' is MSCS - Microsoft clustering services, which is at the Os level. You install SQL server on top of that. It allows a physical server to act as a standby for another. google SQL server clustering. As a starter see

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/clustering/clustering_intro_p1.aspx

With a VM (virtual machine) you can cut an image of the server and quickly restore it to another VM.

Both mean a complete change in direction from your current set up and associated start up hardware costs.

Be aware that with SQL 2000 you require enterprise edition to be able to use clustering.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 35976 Visits: 18726
With those servers and thinking DR and switchover, clustering will work, but it requires hardware to make work. I'm not sure if you could do a 6 node cluster, either.

I might suggest that you consider upgrading to SQL 2005 or 2008 and using Database Mirroing instead, which would give you automatic failover. If you don't want to upgrade, or can't, then log shipping might be your best choice.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search