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:
>
Showing posts with label raiddisk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raiddisk. Show all posts
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/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)