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 Alstersj|||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:
>
>
>
s,[vbcol=seagreen]
ot[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
>
> 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

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
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
<alstersjo@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183648932.226829.223710@.m36g2000hse.googlegr oups.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
|||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.googlegr oups.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
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:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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- Dlj 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

High Availability solutions

Hi

We are using in our company an ERP system called iScala.

This software is using SQL server as DBMS.

We would like to use the SQL mirroring feature from SQL 2005.

The software is using the SQL server instance name to connect to databases and when the Main SQL server fails the application can't connect to the Mirror instance.

Unfortunatelly we can't change the connection string (the software is provided by another company).

Do you have a solution?

Thanks

I believe you have to contact the vendor to provide such changes, as this is application issue to talk to the mirror server in the event of failover. If the application is not db mirror aware then you have to find a route from connectivity to talk to other server in such cases.|||

Thanks

You are right.

I'm checking now some solutions for High Availability from Symantec (VERITAS Storage Foundation HA 4.3 for Windows) and Double-Take.

Do you have any information about them?

|||

You could solve this issue using a manual change to DNS.

i.e. MYLIVESQL -> 10.0.0.1 - connection string uses MYLIVESQL as the server name, in the event of a failure you update the DNS record to MYLIVESQL -> 10.0.0.2 (which is the IP address of the mirror server).

Andrew

|||

If the (former) principal instance is still up and running but the database failover occured, then SNAC will automatically learn the location of the mirror and redirect the connection to the mirror, as described here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms366348.aspx. But this works only if the connection string specifies the database and if the principal instance is still running.

But if the vendor is not providing support for mirroring, is highly unlikely that the application will actually work with mirrored database, it may have dependencies outside the database that are not gonna failover (e.g. logins resulting in orphaned users, jobs in msdb etc)

HTH,
~ Remus

|||

Remus,

MOSS 2007 and WSS V3 fall into the category of not supporting mirroring in the connection strings, hence the need to use the cname approach. Microsoft recommend using stsadm to manually change the settings which I think is less elegant.

Andrew