Redundant SQL servers - Environment

Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
going down the right path.
We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
or continue to provide the functions for the website.
We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
as needed.
Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
the SQL database on the NAS device?
Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
know if you need more details.
Thanks,
CC
SQL Server does not support NAS. If you can use a SAN, then you have two
choices. First, you can go with log shipping. Second, you can go with a
cluster solution, as long as the hardware is supported for clustering.
However, you can't just cluster an existing single-server instance. What
you could do is cluster the server that is not being used right now, migrate
the old instance to it and then remove the old instance. At this point, you
have a single-node cluster. Take the old server and add it to the cluster
and you're there.
For a bit more on clustering, check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/03/SQLClusters/default.aspx
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D7E35BA4-EDE6-4CEB-B474-652CBD9DD64F@.microsoft.com...
Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
going down the right path.
We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
or continue to provide the functions for the website.
We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
as needed.
Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
the SQL database on the NAS device?
Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
know if you need more details.
Thanks,
CC
|||There are several techniques for creating a redundnt SQL environment.
Clustering using a NAS box is not one of them. Clustering using a supported
storage unit is one possible technique. Only a very few NAS systems are
supported for SQL and none are supported for clustering.
Another possibility is database mirroring. This technique does not require
a shared storage system, but is more resource intensive and has some other
unique requirements.
Here is the Microsoft SQL 2005 High Availability home page:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/highavailability/default.mspx
It contains links to FAQs, white papers, etc. on SQL High Availability.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D7E35BA4-EDE6-4CEB-B474-652CBD9DD64F@.microsoft.com...
> Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
> going down the right path.
> We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
> database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
> environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take
> over,
> or continue to provide the functions for the website.
> We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
> each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the
> operations
> as needed.
> Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them
> to
> the SQL database on the NAS device?
> Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
> Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
> know if you need more details.
> Thanks,
> CC
|||In addition to what the others have said, I just want to add that NAS is
built on top of CIFS, and CIFS is a horrible protocol for block I/Os. You'd
be better with considering iSCSI.
Linchi
"VIT" wrote:

> Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and please let me know if we are
> going down the right path.
> We have 2 Windows 2000 Servers running SQL 2000 for a website. The SQL
> database is on one of the two servers and we want to create a redundant
> environment so when one of the SQL servers fails, the other will take over,
> or continue to provide the functions for the website.
> We are thinking of putting the SQL database on a NAS device and then point
> each server to it and if one goes down the other can perform the operations
> as needed.
> Can this be done by clustering the two SQL servers and then pointing them to
> the SQL database on the NAS device?
> Do you know of any other way to create a redundant SQL environment?
> Hopefully I've provided you with enough information, if not please let me
> know if you need more details.
> Thanks,
> CC
|||So based on what we have what is the best, most cost effective way to achieve
a redundant SQL environment?
Thanks,
CC
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In addition to what the others have said, I just want to add that NAS is
> built on top of CIFS, and CIFS is a horrible protocol for block I/Os. You'd
> be better with considering iSCSI.
> Linchi
> "VIT" wrote:
|||What are the requirements of the applications?
Log Shipping is cost-effective, but in the event of an outage, manual
intervention would be required to reconfigure the applications to point to
the failsafe server.
SQL Server 2005 Database Mirroring is also cost-effective but will require
some beefier hardware, an upgraded network to reduce latency, an upgrade to
SQL Server 2005, and a reconfiguration of the applications to the later MDAC
or SQL Native Client protocol. Failover would be automatic.
Finally, Failover Clustering would provide better availability and
automation and is supported under both SQL Server 2000 and 2005; however,
this is not as cost-effective and requires a shared storage array
environment. SQL Server 2005, however, has introduced support for failover
clusters on the Standard Edition, which helps reduce the expense some.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"VIT" <VIT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:353890CD-84AA-4E3B-A6FB-8A6580611216@.microsoft.com...
> So based on what we have what is the best, most cost effective way to
achieve[vbcol=seagreen]
> a redundant SQL environment?
> Thanks,
> CC
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
You'd[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
redundant[vbcol=seagreen]
over,[vbcol=seagreen]
point[vbcol=seagreen]
operations[vbcol=seagreen]
them to[vbcol=seagreen]
me[vbcol=seagreen]