Redundant Databases

I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then another
system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site manager's
duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the best
way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?
Database Mirroring or clustering are ideal for this. If you have an
intelligent client which will do automatic failover to the active node Log
Shipping or Clustering will also work.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"dbaechtel" <dbaechtel@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F754791D-082E-49C9-A8F6-7A205E9B4083@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
> clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
> them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
> database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then
> another
> system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site
> manager's
> duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
> manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
> someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the
> best
> way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?
|||If you are looking for pure hardware redundancy, clustering is a better
choice. If you want to make the data redundant as well, then you need to go
with an additional technology. In SQL Server 2000 you could use either log
shipping or replication. In SQL Server 2005, you can add database mirroring
to that list.
"dbaechtel" <dbaechtel@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F754791D-082E-49C9-A8F6-7A205E9B4083@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to architect a system that will will have one or more machines
> clustered together. The machines must share a common site database between
> them. I assume that one machine at any one time should manage the site
> database. If the machine that manages the site database fails, then
> another
> system online, it doesn't matter which, should take over the site
> manager's
> duties. It is acceptable if the first machine online would assume the site
> manager's duties initally. The machines are essentually peer to peer, but
> someone must manage the common database. Is SQL Server Replication the
> best
> way to do this? Is there other, simpler or better ways to do this?