Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql. After
making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and readiness we have
decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a standby failover. Due to
the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have decided to stick with Standard
Edition. Here is how we intend to set it up and wanted to see whether this
was feasible and were there any downsides to this architecture.
1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS Server
4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS Server.
Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to go down.
Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
thanks a bunch!
For "emergency standby SQL Server" options, you way want to look at data
replicaiton tools like Double-Take:
http://www.nsisoftware.com/pro/doubletake/
It will replicate your database to another standby SQL Server. No need to
build a cluster, or try and share the same NAS between 2 SQL Servers.
Chris Skorlinski
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply directly to the thread with any updates.
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
load balancing & sql ?
can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
edition ?
i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
(sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
ScottIn the context of SQL Server, the question just doesn't make sense.
What are you 'load balancing'?
Load balancing is normally intended to direct traffic to one of multiple
servers -typically web servers. I would think that having a database in
multiple servers would create problems with data consistency, etc.
Perhaps if you told us a little more about what you are attempting to
accomplish, we can help direct you to the correct information.
--
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ePoYZryrGHA.4884@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
> edition ?
> i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
> (sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
> Scott
>|||thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
scott wrote:
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> for 30 users.
> Scott
>
>
There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
performance.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
scott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">There shouldn't be any problems in
having 2 network cards in the server, but I doubt it will make any
difference. In terms of load and performance, it's in my opinion never
the network cards that causes any bottleneck. It's your disk system and
your CPU/Memory that affects performance. <br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Regards<br>
Steen Schlüter Persson<br>
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
--050204090900090208000009--|||...and bad SQL(locking/blocking) :-)
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > thanks for reply.
> >
> > I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> > gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> > for 30 users.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
> but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
> performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
> bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
> performance.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlüter Persson
> Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
>|||I can't imagine that you have a server for 30 users where a single GB NIC
will be 'overloaded', so the second one is mostly providing a 'safety net'.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard
> edition for 30 users.
> Scott
>|||excellent thanks for the replies
Scott
edition ?
i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
(sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
ScottIn the context of SQL Server, the question just doesn't make sense.
What are you 'load balancing'?
Load balancing is normally intended to direct traffic to one of multiple
servers -typically web servers. I would think that having a database in
multiple servers would create problems with data consistency, etc.
Perhaps if you told us a little more about what you are attempting to
accomplish, we can help direct you to the correct information.
--
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ePoYZryrGHA.4884@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
> edition ?
> i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
> (sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
> Scott
>|||thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
scott wrote:
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> for 30 users.
> Scott
>
>
There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
performance.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
scott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">There shouldn't be any problems in
having 2 network cards in the server, but I doubt it will make any
difference. In terms of load and performance, it's in my opinion never
the network cards that causes any bottleneck. It's your disk system and
your CPU/Memory that affects performance. <br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Regards<br>
Steen Schlüter Persson<br>
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
--050204090900090208000009--|||...and bad SQL(locking/blocking) :-)
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > thanks for reply.
> >
> > I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> > gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> > for 30 users.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
> but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
> performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
> bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
> performance.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlüter Persson
> Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
>|||I can't imagine that you have a server for 30 users where a single GB NIC
will be 'overloaded', so the second one is mostly providing a 'safety net'.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard
> edition for 30 users.
> Scott
>|||excellent thanks for the replies
Scott
Monday, March 12, 2012
List Property - can grow/can shrink
I'm trying to generate a report that will simulate Avery Standard form 5388 - a basic 3 x 5 index card.
I'm using a list and a table to generate the output. Basically I have the list sized at exactly 3 x 5. I'm limiting my rows to be returned to 5 rows so that the table does not grow too large, and I'm using the Page Header to handle the top space, and have placed the list/table regions within the body region to handle the left margin.
The problem I'm having is to have the list print exactly 3x5...I would like to make sure that the list ALWAYS maintains this size - no growing or shrinking;however the list does not have this property that I can see.
I'm currently working in RS2000...can it be done in either 2000 or is this something that 2005 can only handle.
I figured it out...I placed a 3x5 rectangle inside the 3x5 list data region. Seems to be working.List of supported components for SQL server 2005 Standard edition?
Please can someone give me a url or even their own list of support / unsupported components in SQL server 2005 Standard edition.
I know fuzzy lookup is not supported. Is a slowly changing dimension supported?
Its a bit difficult to tell when I get bizzare "Product level is insufficient" error for even a basic derived column transformation when executing a package using SSIS unless it is executed using a scheduled job....
thanks,
Nicole
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
-Jamie
|||
SQL Server 2005 Editions and Integration Services
(http://www.sqlis.com/default.aspx?31)
SQL Server 2005 Features Comparison
(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)