I have three tables that all contain different types of data but have a customer name in common. I can join the three of them into one view that gives me an overview of what issues they are having by using the following query:
SELECT dbo.ProjectContentCount.SiteName AS SiteContent, dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName AS SiteIssue,
dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.SiteName AS SiteFeature, dbo.ProjectContentCount.[Open] AS OpenContent,
dbo.ProjectContentCount.Fixed AS FixedContent, dbo.ProjectContentCount.Closed AS ClosedContent, dbo.ProjectIssueCount.[Open] AS OpenIssue,
dbo.ProjectIssueCount.Pending AS PendingIssue, dbo.ProjectIssueCount.Closed AS ClosedIssue, dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.[Open] AS OpenFeature,
dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.Pending AS PendingFeature, dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.Closed AS ClosedFeature
FROM dbo.ProjectFeatureCount FULL OUTER JOIN
dbo.ProjectIssueCount ON dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.SiteName = dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName FULL OUTER JOIN
dbo.ProjectContentCount ON dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName = dbo.ProjectContentCount.SiteName AND
dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.SiteName = dbo.ProjectContentCount.SiteName
This works fine because it gets a list of all clients and data for whichever row there exists data of that type, whether or not there is data for a given client on each table.
However, I now need to join this group of data to a master client table that contains contact information. The master table has info about all the clients but every join I try breaks the join I have working above and causes duplicate rows.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!Well, I found my answer after many iterations in query analyzer and here is what I came up with. I hope it helps someone else...
SELECT dbo.SiteMaster.ItemID, dbo.SiteMaster.ModuleID, dbo.SiteMaster.SiteID, dbo.SiteMaster.SiteManager, dbo.SiteMaster.SiteStatus,
dbo.SiteMaster.SiteName, dbo.ProjectIssueCount.[Open] AS OpenIssue, dbo.ProjectIssueCount.Pending AS PendingIssue,
dbo.ProjectIssueCount.Closed AS ClosedIssue, dbo.ProjectContentCount.[Open] AS OpenContent, dbo.ProjectContentCount.Fixed AS FixedContent,
dbo.ProjectContentCount.Closed AS ClosedContent, dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.[Open] AS OpenFeature,
dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.Pending AS PendingFeature, dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.Closed AS ClosedFeature
FROM dbo.ProjectContentCount FULL OUTER JOIN
dbo.ProjectIssueCount FULL OUTER JOIN
dbo.SiteMaster ON dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName = dbo.SiteMaster.SiteName FULL OUTER JOIN
dbo.ProjectFeatureCount ON dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName = dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.SiteName AND
dbo.SiteMaster.SiteName = dbo.ProjectFeatureCount.SiteName ON dbo.ProjectContentCount.SiteName = dbo.SiteMaster.SiteName AND
dbo.ProjectContentCount.SiteName = dbo.ProjectIssueCount.SiteName
Showing posts with label common. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?
No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>
|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?
No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>
|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >
> >
> >|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> No.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff N. Hiten
> >> Senior Database Administrator
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
>> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
>> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
>> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >
> >
> >|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> No.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff N. Hiten
> >> Senior Database Administrator
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
>> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
>> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
>> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>
Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk
Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)