[THIN] Re: Slightly OT: SQL Redundancy

  • From: "Evan Mann" <emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:20:39 -0400

If one of your failover situations requires restoring from backup, then
that's not a very high level of redundancy.  I wouldn't consider it to
be high availability, and only "half" of failover.

Drives are going to be the most common thing to fail in a heavy use
server.  The processor, power supplies, and mainboard doesn't get the
type of mechanical abuse HDD's do.


From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bray, Donovan (ESC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:18 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Slightly OT: SQL Redundancy

Put "EMC/Legato's FullTime AutoStart/SE (formerly Co-StandbyServer
AAdvanced)" on your list to check out.
I have it on the way to replace our MSCS Exchange Cluster.
The advantage of Autostart is that we can use block level mirroring
between nodes and eleminate the single point of failure of the shared
scsi resource.
We opted not to use clustering for our SQL boxes due to the steep
processor licensing as you have to graduate to  Enterprise processor
What we opted to do is buy two hardware boxes that are totally
identical, Each loaded with 2gb RAM (Max for Standard), we licensed the
ACTIVE box for its Dual Processors. We use the spare box just as a
test/development box. Both boxes are configured with two 146gb ultra3
hot-swap scsi drives in a hardware mirror.  24gb system partition, the
rest is for SQL on a secondary partition. If there is a failure on the
primary server, I have dedicated hardware already in the rack, powered
on, ready to recieve the drives  from the failed box.  If the failed
box's drives are whats suspect, then I have to restore from backup.  
Your business realities may be different and not allow you to have this
kind of manual failover. But the alternative in our case was just too
expensive to justify.


From: Joe Shonk [mailto:joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:55 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Slightly OT: SQL Redundancy



What a success (or failure) has the group encountered in making SQL
servers Highly Available?  Either through clustering (Microsoft or
third-party) or replicated partners.  We are looking to move the Citrix
DataStore and a few application databases to a HA solution, while
minimizing the impact to farm in event an HA partner goes down.



Other related posts: