Redundant Servers?

I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
server will start handling the functions of the primary
server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!Look into Microsoft Cluster Services and Microsoft SQL Clustering.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Kris" <grindaz@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:022f01c34181$83b10930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
> preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
> Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
> SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
> run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
> database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
> server will start handling the functions of the primary
> server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
> the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
> way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
> Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
> WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
> appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
> this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>|||Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends on
how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
your users could deal with in the event of a system
crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
complex until you've done it a while, and you need shared
disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
Then you could also look at something like shipping your
transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then changing
server names and bringing that server online...
It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
that's bearable... Bruce
>--Original Message--
>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can use
>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be running
>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>database. If the primary server fails then the secondary
>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need
>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there a
>way to sync this data? I have thought about using Legato
>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin so
>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>.
>|||Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
thanks again.
Kris
>--Original Message--
>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
on
>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
>your users could deal with in the event of a system
>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
shared
>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
changing
>server names and bringing that server online...
>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
>that's bearable... Bruce
>>--Original Message--
>>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
use
>>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
running
>>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>>database. If the primary server fails then the
secondary
>>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
need
>>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
a
>>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
Legato
>>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
so
>>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>>.
>.
>|||In your situation, you have two servers (nodes), and also
a shared disk array, a separate unit, sitting between and
cbaled to each node. Yes, the database files sit on the
shared drives, there's only one copy of them (well, not
counting whatever you do for disaster planning!)... After
teh 2 node cluster is built, then you install SQL Server
and it's "cluster-aware", so you should generally only
have to install it once, and it actually installs SQL
Server software on BOTH nodes C: drives, but anything
shared goes on the disk array. I'm not a hardware guy, to
talk about disk array brands exactly, and which is
better... But in a cluster you need some type of shared
disk between the nodes. Also, since you're dealing with 2
machines, keep in mind that you have TWO registries, so
anything not cluster-aware, needs to MAYBE be done on each
box... Bruce
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
>on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
>using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
>reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
>except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
>do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
>clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
>synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
>shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
>thanks again.
>Kris
>>--Original Message--
>>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
>>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
>on
>>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
>>your users could deal with in the event of a system
>>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
>>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
>shared
>>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
>>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
>>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
>>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
>>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
>changing
>>server names and bringing that server online...
>>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
>>that's bearable... Bruce
>>--Original Message--
>>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
>>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
>use
>>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
>running
>>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
>>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
>>database. If the primary server fails then the
>secondary
>>server will start handling the functions of the primary
>>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
>need
>>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
>a
>>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
>Legato
>>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
>>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
>>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
>so
>>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
>>.
>>.
>.
>|||probably the cheapest solution is log shipping, which can be home grown or
purchased (enterprise edition). Failover is manual, then.
"Bruce de Freitas" <bruce@.defreitas.com> wrote in message
news:08f801c34193$8b57c950$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> In your situation, you have two servers (nodes), and also
> a shared disk array, a separate unit, sitting between and
> cbaled to each node. Yes, the database files sit on the
> shared drives, there's only one copy of them (well, not
> counting whatever you do for disaster planning!)... After
> teh 2 node cluster is built, then you install SQL Server
> and it's "cluster-aware", so you should generally only
> have to install it once, and it actually installs SQL
> Server software on BOTH nodes C: drives, but anything
> shared goes on the disk array. I'm not a hardware guy, to
> talk about disk array brands exactly, and which is
> better... But in a cluster you need some type of shared
> disk between the nodes. Also, since you're dealing with 2
> machines, keep in mind that you have TWO registries, so
> anything not cluster-aware, needs to MAYBE be done on each
> box... Bruce
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Thanks for the reply Bruce. I cannot spend lots of money
> >on this like $11,000 for SQL Ent. ED. But I will be
> >using Windows Server 20003 Enterprise. I have been
> >reading about clustering and it sounds like the way to go
> >except for as you metion the shared storage. How exactly
> >do you do this? What type of hardware? Also, will
> >clustering keep data in the SQL database on each machine
> >synced together or do you have to keep the DB on the
> >shared storage? I look forward to your comments and
> >thanks again.
> >
> >Kris
> >
> >>--Original Message--
> >>Kris, the answer depends on what you need exactly. When
> >>you ask for the "best way" to approach, it also depends
> >on
> >>how much $$$ you'd like to spend, and how much down time
> >>your users could deal with in the event of a system
> >>crash. Yes, clustering is a nice option, but it's more
> >>complex until you've done it a while, and you need
> >shared
> >>disk storage between the nodes, Advanced Server and
> >>Enterprise Ed of SQL Server...
> >>
> >>Then you could also look at something like shipping your
> >>transaction logs over to the offline server, and if a
> >>crash happens, maybe get that last LOG over, then
> >changing
> >>server names and bringing that server online...
> >>
> >>It all depends on the budget and the length of down time
> >>that's bearable... Bruce
> >>
> >>--Original Message--
> >>I have to setup a redundant server system. I want to
> >>preferably use Windows Server 2003 Standard but I can
> >use
> >>Windows Server 2000 as well. The system will be
> >running
> >>SQL Server 2000. I am writing some custom software to
> >>run on the system and will be storing data to the SQL
> >>database. If the primary server fails then the
> >secondary
> >>server will start handling the functions of the primary
> >>server. What is the best way to accomplish this? I
> >need
> >>the data in each SQL database to be identical, is there
> >a
> >>way to sync this data? I have thought about using
> >Legato
> >>Co-Standby Server AAdvanced, is this a good product?
> >>WIll it do what I need? Any ideas are greatly
> >>appreciated. I am a software engineer not a sys admin
> >so
> >>this is kinda new to me. Thanks!!!
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >.
> >