High Availibility SQL 2000

Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
transferred in replication.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<alstersjo@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi
We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
failover soloution.
My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
shipping?
My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
example.
Best Regards Henrik Alstersjö|||On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign keys,
> stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are not
> transferred in replication.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> We are setting up a soloution with 2 sql 2000 servers as a manuel
> failover soloution.
> My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> shipping?
> My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> example.
> Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6
Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
utilize an active/passive configuration.
Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
Aaron|||On 5 Juli, 22:06, acorcoran <acorco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:46 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Replication copies data elements, not the entire database. Foreign key=s,
> > stored procedures, unique constraints, and user-defined functions are n=ot
> > transferred in replication.
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > <alster...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
> > We are setting up a soloutionwith 2 sql 2000servers as a manuel
> > failover soloution.
> > My question is: What is best, to use transactional replication or log
> > shipping?
> > My old book about sql2000 says only logshipping for this situation but
> > i cant't figure out why not to use replication.
> > And please, I'ts not my desission to use this layout I only follow
> > orders so its not possible to use SQL clustering or SQL2005 for
> > example.
> > Best Regards Henrik Alstersj=F6
> Just eo ensure I'm on the right page, when you state that you are
> utilizing a manual failover, does that mean you will not be utilizing
> Microsoft Clustering Services (MSCS)? Using this would take care of
> any necessity for log shipping or replication and you could simply
> utilize an active/passive configuration.
> Otherwise, if you aren't utilizing this, what would the damage be of
> simply backing up your database and when a manual failover is
> necessary, simply restore the backup to your secondary server? Of
> course, this may be a bit time consuming, however, with your current
> situation, it doesn't sound like high availability is a top priority
> and the time to restore your database should be fairly quick.
> Aaron- D=F6lj citerad text -
> - Visa citerad text -
Hi
Thanks for your input, both of you.
The reason that we don't want to use backup restore functionality is
that the failovertime is not needed to bee quick but the data must be
up to date to the crash. So if we have a sevear servercrash we cant
get so fresh data from the sql server.
Regards Henrik