Clustering VS Replication

We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a second
SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would be
able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements for
both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
Thanx...Jon
Windows Clustering requires a shared disk array and all the equipment must
be on the Clustering Hardware Compatibility List. Replication does not
require any special hardware but is not usually used for DR although some
do. You might want to look at using Log shipping or even the new Database
Mirroring features. Both are documented in BooksOnLine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
> server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a
> second
> SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would
> be
> able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
> Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements
> for
> both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
> that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
> Thanx...Jon
|||"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that we are about to upgrade to SQL 2005. This
> server is running on Server 2003 standard. We would like to set up a
> second
> SQL 2005 server and either do clustering or replication so that we would
> be
> able to access our data in the event of a single server failure.
> Which is the "better' solution and what are the minimum OS requirements
> for
> both? In either case, each server will be running its own local disk array
> that would contain the OS and the databaeses.
>
Well clustering is a shared-disk solution. Replication, Log Shipping and
Database Mirroring are all options, though.
David
|||Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure that
this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be in
two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if the
processes you mentioned would be the best?
Thanx...Jon
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Windows Clustering requires a shared disk array and all the equipment must
> be on the Clustering Hardware Compatibility List. Replication does not
> require any special hardware but is not usually used for DR although some
> do. You might want to look at using Log shipping or even the new Database
> Mirroring features. Both are documented in BooksOnLine.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:505EE799-B615-4220-96C5-F5A7EDE71F74@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi
That is DB Mirroring, available for SQL Server 2005 early 2006.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C3C5AE8-3A63-4DD3-AD76-A79E4C13969F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
> server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
> process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure
> that
> this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be
> in
> two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
> would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if
> the
> processes you mentioned would be the best?
> Thanx...Jon
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||As Mike stated that is what Mirroring is made for. But Log Shipping is also
a viable alternative and is available now. It has a longer time to be up
and running after a failover but that is configurable with how often you log
ship.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jon Yiesla" <JonYiesla@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C3C5AE8-3A63-4DD3-AD76-A79E4C13969F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually DB mirroring sounds like what we might need. We have a recent SQL
> server crash and it's too critical a piece to not have some kind of DR
> process in place. The more I read about clustering the more I am unsure
> that
> this is the way I'd like to go. What we would like is for the data to be
> in
> two places both running SQL Server and if one server goes down, the other
> would automatically or with minimal effort pick up the slack...Which if
> the
> processes you mentioned would be the best?
> Thanx...Jon
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Hi,
I am just curious on the difference between replication & log shipping. Is
the underlaying just triggers of SQL statements that done the
insert/delete/update ?
if i set up replication to rep every 2 minutes or continuously , is it any
difference with having log shipping (which i personally find it more diffcult
to setup then replication)
tks & rdgs
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>As Mike stated that is what Mirroring is made for. But Log Shipping is also
>a viable alternative and is available now. It has a longer time to be up
>and running after a failover but that is configurable with how often you log
>ship.
>[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||There is quite a bit of difference between the two. Too much to go into here
but if you read up in BooksOnLine on each you will begin to see all the
features of both. But in a nut shell Log shipping utilizes a backup of the
log and applies all of the changes in the log on the log shipped server
exactly as they occurred on the original. Replication has many configurable
options to determine what gets replicated and how and uses a Log reader and
distributor database to forward the changes.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"maxzsim via droptable.com" <u14644@.uwe> wrote in message
news:58b3593a1e828@.uwe...
> Hi,
> I am just curious on the difference between replication & log shipping.
> Is
> the underlaying just triggers of SQL statements that done the
> insert/delete/update ?
> if i set up replication to rep every 2 minutes or continuously , is it
> any
> difference with having log shipping (which i personally find it more
> diffcult
> to setup then replication)
> tks & rdgs
>
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com