i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?
Showing posts with label fault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fault. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Clusters idea. Guidance Please.
i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?
Clusters idea. Guidance Please.
i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?
Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?
holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
changes. System performance is not an issue.
Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But i
will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done, you
would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
So here is my thought:
I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
(Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
Am I missing something? Will this work?
Aside from the fact that replication in SQL 2000 does not include DDL
statements or stored procedures or views or a lot of other things, you have
a good idea. Seriously, fault tolerance is a very good idea. Fault
tolerance on zero budget is willful stupidity on the part of management. I
suggest researching all recovery scenarios, starting with backup-restore,
moving up to log shipping, then failover clustering. Show the pros and
cons, focusing on potential data loss and estimated recovery times. Include
realistic cost estimates for each option. You can even include Database
Mirroring as an option but with SQL 2005 as a pre-requisite. Also, examine
third-party options that do something akin to DB mirroring at the file
level. Some actually work, but make them demonstrate it befoer plunking
down your money.
Your job is not to make up something for nothing, it is to present realistic
options to the business decision makers and to implement their choices. If
they choose not to listen and to demand the impossible, then it is time to
find a job where failure isn't mandatory.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FEEB93C-D3EB-4790-9379-6BD24531C0F1@.microsoft.com...
>i have been tasked to add fault tolerance to a SQL 2000 server we have that
> holds the databases for a Sharepoint Server.
> I am not going to get the funds to make it a SQL Cluster, and SQL 2005 is
> just not going to be used ever, so that new funky disk mirroring is out.
> The good news is that this Sharepoint site is almost entirely static. I am
> the only person who publishes content, so the databases do not have many
> changes. System performance is not an issue.
> Don't ask why I am using Sharepoint like this; I inherited this beast. But
> i
> will say that because of the massive amount of custom programming done,
> you
> would never know you are looking at a sharepoint portal.
> So here is my thought:
> I have two different NIC teams in these servers.
> Set up replication between two sql servers and then join them in an NLB
> (Network Load Balancing) Cluster.
>
> Am I missing something? Will this work?
Clustering without shared disk array?
Hi all,
We have 3 server, compaq 570ML and try to find out the way to increase
availability and fault tolarency with MS SQL 2k server, W2k AS. I heard SQL
failover clustering is not possible without disk array, is it no way?
Regards
That is correct. You will need a shared data source that the cluster
software can arbitrate between the host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Dan" <leedh@.nicstech.com> wrote in message
news:v7mrc.47393$xQ6.569121@.news.bora.net...
> Hi all,
> We have 3 server, compaq 570ML and try to find out the way to increase
> availability and fault tolarency with MS SQL 2k server, W2k AS. I heard
SQL
> failover clustering is not possible without disk array, is it no way?
> Regards
>
|||Yes you do have to have a shared drive in order to install a SQL Server
cluster.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||Not according to this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...Fwct040604.asp
There seems to be a lot of confusion around this issue. You do need a mechanism for the databases to synchronize, but they do not have to be on a shared disk array. In fact, a shared disk array creates a single point of failure. You do need a "shared driv
e" - as in a file share - for the quorum resource, but that's not a shared disk.
I am about to create a geographically dispersed cluster and am planning to try this. Perhaps I will have a different answer after actually trying it.
Doug
"Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:
> Yes you do have to have a shared drive in order to install a SQL Server
> cluster.
>
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
>
|||That right. It is possible if a third party vendor builds a geographic solution based on MNS clusters.
But for a local SQL Server cluster, you might be better off implementing a standard server cluster. You must weigh your options.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
We have 3 server, compaq 570ML and try to find out the way to increase
availability and fault tolarency with MS SQL 2k server, W2k AS. I heard SQL
failover clustering is not possible without disk array, is it no way?
Regards
That is correct. You will need a shared data source that the cluster
software can arbitrate between the host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Dan" <leedh@.nicstech.com> wrote in message
news:v7mrc.47393$xQ6.569121@.news.bora.net...
> Hi all,
> We have 3 server, compaq 570ML and try to find out the way to increase
> availability and fault tolarency with MS SQL 2k server, W2k AS. I heard
SQL
> failover clustering is not possible without disk array, is it no way?
> Regards
>
|||Yes you do have to have a shared drive in order to install a SQL Server
cluster.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||Not according to this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...Fwct040604.asp
There seems to be a lot of confusion around this issue. You do need a mechanism for the databases to synchronize, but they do not have to be on a shared disk array. In fact, a shared disk array creates a single point of failure. You do need a "shared driv
e" - as in a file share - for the quorum resource, but that's not a shared disk.
I am about to create a geographically dispersed cluster and am planning to try this. Perhaps I will have a different answer after actually trying it.
Doug
"Rand Boyd [MSFT]" wrote:
> Yes you do have to have a shared drive in order to install a SQL Server
> cluster.
>
> Rand
> This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
>
|||That right. It is possible if a third party vendor builds a geographic solution based on MNS clusters.
But for a local SQL Server cluster, you might be better off implementing a standard server cluster. You must weigh your options.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)