Does anyone have any techniques to be able to display what environment a
server might be part of (e.g. Production, UAT, Development etc).
Instance names already follow a standard naming convention (non descriptive)
so that is not an option.
My ideal solution would be to have a description appear for the server
registration in SSMS or Entman.
e.g.
server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 - dom1\myuser)
would become...
server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 PRODUCTION - dom1\myuser)
-
What metadata/ registry entries would I need to change to get this. Would it
cause issues (such as service pack upgrade problems). I would prefer not to
have to resort to putting this in a db/ table since I want the information
visible without having to issue a query.
Many thanks,
Mark.Hi
How does it know whether SQL Server uses PRODUCTION ir DEVELOPMENT?
http://dimantdatabasesolutions.blog...er.ht
ml
"news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OFMENhYNIHA.5140@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone have any techniques to be able to display what environment a
> server might be part of (e.g. Production, UAT, Development etc).
> Instance names already follow a standard naming convention (non
> descriptive) so that is not an option.
> My ideal solution would be to have a description appear for the server
> registration in SSMS or Entman.
> e.g.
> server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 - dom1\myuser)
> would become...
> server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 PRODUCTION - dom1\myuser)
> -
> What metadata/ registry entries would I need to change to get this. Would
> it cause issues (such as service pack upgrade problems). I would prefer
> not to have to resort to putting this in a db/ table since I want the
> information visible without having to issue a query.
> Many thanks,
> Mark.
>|||> My ideal solution would be to have a description appear for the server
> registration in SSMS or Entman.
Both SSMS and Enterprise Manager allow you to to logically group servers.
You might consider creating different groups for PROD, UAT, etc. to
categorize your servers by environment.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OFMENhYNIHA.5140@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone have any techniques to be able to display what environment a
> server might be part of (e.g. Production, UAT, Development etc).
> Instance names already follow a standard naming convention (non
> descriptive) so that is not an option.
> My ideal solution would be to have a description appear for the server
> registration in SSMS or Entman.
> e.g.
> server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 - dom1\myuser)
> would become...
> server1 (SQL Server 8.0.878 PRODUCTION - dom1\myuser)
> -
> What metadata/ registry entries would I need to change to get this. Would
> it cause issues (such as service pack upgrade problems). I would prefer
> not to have to resort to putting this in a db/ table since I want the
> information visible without having to issue a query.
> Many thanks,
> Mark.
>|||those properties just tell me about the installation and are readonly.
I'm looking to add a custom property description that will be displayed at
the server registration.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:uUguZuZNIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> How does it know whether SQL Server uses PRODUCTION ir DEVELOPMENT?
> http://dimantdatabasesolutions.blog...er.
html
> "news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OFMENhYNIHA.5140@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||that would only help me (and I dont want to distribute anything).
what I need is for the logical server usage name to be displayed whenever a
developer registers a server.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5F7B5747-FBF7-44BA-9D5A-5387DCA323CC@.microsoft.com...
> Both SSMS and Enterprise Manager allow you to to logically group servers.
> You might consider creating different groups for PROD, UAT, etc. to
> categorize your servers by environment.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OFMENhYNIHA.5140@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||> what I need is for the logical server usage name to be displayed whenever
> a developer registers a server.
I don't have suggestion other than those already mentioned. The Best
Practice is to use mnemonic server/instance names that include the role of
the server but you mentioned that's not an option.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O9shrmlNIHA.5988@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> that would only help me (and I dont want to distribute anything).
> what I need is for the logical server usage name to be displayed whenever
> a developer registers a server.
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5F7B5747-FBF7-44BA-9D5A-5387DCA323CC@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks anyway Dan, always good to know opinions on best practice though.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C9D2AAAF-D3F1-4293-97FC-951A096736F2@.microsoft.com...
> I don't have suggestion other than those already mentioned. The Best
> Practice is to use mnemonic server/instance names that include the role of
> the server but you mentioned that's not an option.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "news.microsoft.com" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O9shrmlNIHA.5988@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
2012年3月29日星期四
disks when doing mirroirng
Hi,
I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
I want to use Mirroring between the two.
I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
services)
each server has 6 disks.
what is the best configuration of these disks ?
3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
and where should i put things ?
e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
compared with the first option
"raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> services)
> each server has 6 disks.
>
> what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> and where should i put things ?
> e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
>|||Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
If your data is not static, then ...
RAID 1 = Os
RAID 1 = Data Files
RAID 1 = Log Files
Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
transactions and log files...
Edgardo wrote:
> If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> compared with the first option
> "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > services)
> >
> > each server has 6 disks.
> >
> >
> > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> >
> > and where should i put things ?
> > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> >
> >|||thanks for the quick answer.
some remarks and a question ...
1) i can not do RAID10 since my disks are not so big ... and i can not
buy bigger.
2) my data is not static, so i guess the second option is better.
the high availability will be supported by the mirroring between
servers so i'm relaxed on that.
do you have recomendation were to put the SSIS, Reporting services,
tempDB ?
jocamp3@.gmail.com wrote:
> Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
> RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
> RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
> If your data is not static, then ...
> RAID 1 = Os
> RAID 1 = Data Files
> RAID 1 = Log Files
> Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
> RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
> transactions and log files...
>
> Edgardo wrote:
> > If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> >
> > 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> > 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> > between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> >
> > This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> > the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> >
> > Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> > which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> > and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> > compared with the first option
> >
> > "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > > services)
> > >
> > > each server has 6 disks.
> > >
> > >
> > > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> > >
> > > and where should i put things ?
> > > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> > >
> > >sql
I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
I want to use Mirroring between the two.
I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
services)
each server has 6 disks.
what is the best configuration of these disks ?
3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
and where should i put things ?
e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
compared with the first option
"raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> services)
> each server has 6 disks.
>
> what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> and where should i put things ?
> e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
>|||Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
If your data is not static, then ...
RAID 1 = Os
RAID 1 = Data Files
RAID 1 = Log Files
Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
transactions and log files...
Edgardo wrote:
> If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> compared with the first option
> "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > services)
> >
> > each server has 6 disks.
> >
> >
> > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> >
> > and where should i put things ?
> > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> >
> >|||thanks for the quick answer.
some remarks and a question ...
1) i can not do RAID10 since my disks are not so big ... and i can not
buy bigger.
2) my data is not static, so i guess the second option is better.
the high availability will be supported by the mirroring between
servers so i'm relaxed on that.
do you have recomendation were to put the SSIS, Reporting services,
tempDB ?
jocamp3@.gmail.com wrote:
> Is your database OLTP? ... if not, you can setup your server like this:
> RAID 1 (2 disks) = Os
> RAID 5 (4 disks) = Data and Log files
> If your data is not static, then ...
> RAID 1 = Os
> RAID 1 = Data Files
> RAID 1 = Log Files
> Using this last config. you won't have a high availability option like
> RAID 5 for your data but you'll have a better performance for your
> transactions and log files...
>
> Edgardo wrote:
> > If all drives are the same size and type, for fault tolerance:
> >
> > 1- Mirror of two disks for OS and SQL Server
> > 2- Create two mirrors (2 drives each) and then create a stripe with parity
> > between both mirrors (RAID 0). I will put the data and log files there.
> >
> > This way, you can have 3 failed disks (one failed disk on each mirror) and
> > the system will still be online. Also RAID 0 will give you better performance.
> >
> > Another option would be to create a RAID 5 with for the data and the files,
> > which will give you a good performance for reads (not as good for wites..)
> > and you will be having more space for storage for the data and the logs,
> > compared with the first option
> >
> > "raviv762@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm using SQL 2005 with 2 identical servers
> > > I want to use Mirroring between the two.
> > > I'll have on both SQL Engine, SSIS & Reporting services (no Analysis
> > > services)
> > >
> > > each server has 6 disks.
> > >
> > >
> > > what is the best configuration of these disks ?
> > > 3 RAID1, 1 RAID1 + RAID5 ?
> > >
> > > and where should i put things ?
> > > e.g. OS, data files, log files, tempDB, reporting services, SSIS ..
> > >
> > >sql
2012年3月27日星期二
Disk Stats
I'm relatively new to Perf Mon and am trying to figure out
the best disk objects to use. I've been watching our
servers and I've noticed that sometimes in the evening the
Avg Disk Q Length goes over acceptable levels. But during
the entire night (or most of it) the Total MBytes/Second
is very high due to backups apparently.
How can I interpret these two numbers? One says the
server is getting slammed all night and the ohter says
it's only having troubles occasionally? Which do I go by?Dan,
Having high values for Total MBytes/Second is not necessarily bad, all it
indicates is that you're getting good I/O throughput.
However, Avg Disk Queue Length can be a sign of problems, especially when it
gets into the hundreds, because it is indicating that the I/O system cannot
keep up with requests.
For advice on the best SQL Server PerfMon counters for disk I/O, see Tom
Davidson's articles in SQL Magazine.
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:017601c4a00a$51af0c00$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm relatively new to Perf Mon and am trying to figure out
> the best disk objects to use. I've been watching our
> servers and I've noticed that sometimes in the evening the
> Avg Disk Q Length goes over acceptable levels. But during
> the entire night (or most of it) the Total MBytes/Second
> is very high due to backups apparently.
> How can I interpret these two numbers? One says the
> server is getting slammed all night and the ohter says
> it's only having troubles occasionally? Which do I go by?sql
the best disk objects to use. I've been watching our
servers and I've noticed that sometimes in the evening the
Avg Disk Q Length goes over acceptable levels. But during
the entire night (or most of it) the Total MBytes/Second
is very high due to backups apparently.
How can I interpret these two numbers? One says the
server is getting slammed all night and the ohter says
it's only having troubles occasionally? Which do I go by?Dan,
Having high values for Total MBytes/Second is not necessarily bad, all it
indicates is that you're getting good I/O throughput.
However, Avg Disk Queue Length can be a sign of problems, especially when it
gets into the hundreds, because it is indicating that the I/O system cannot
keep up with requests.
For advice on the best SQL Server PerfMon counters for disk I/O, see Tom
Davidson's articles in SQL Magazine.
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Dan" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:017601c4a00a$51af0c00$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm relatively new to Perf Mon and am trying to figure out
> the best disk objects to use. I've been watching our
> servers and I've noticed that sometimes in the evening the
> Avg Disk Q Length goes over acceptable levels. But during
> the entire night (or most of it) the Total MBytes/Second
> is very high due to backups apparently.
> How can I interpret these two numbers? One says the
> server is getting slammed all night and the ohter says
> it's only having troubles occasionally? Which do I go by?sql
2012年3月25日星期日
Disk Full of transactions log's
Hi,
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Rich
Hi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Rich
Hi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
Disk Full of transactions log's
Hi,
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
RichHi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_corrupt_suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
RichHi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_corrupt_suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
Disk Full of transactions log's
Hi,
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
RichHi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/in..._suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
One of my app servers has filled the c:\ drive with transactions log's.
Someone moved the log's to another disk, SQL now reports the database as
being suspect. We moved the log's back, it still reports the db as suspect?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
RichHi,
take a look here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/in..._suspect_db.asp
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||reset should resolve the problem (order in sequences, try the next step
if the first one doesn't work).
1) restart the MSSQL services (starts the auto recovery)
2) detach and re-attach the database
3) restore the latest database backup
Mel
2012年3月22日星期四
Disk activity
We are about to go to SQL 2005 and that means getting some new Servers and i am wondering if our SAN is adequate.
I like to measure over the next few weeks the amount of data that is sent to the SAN and how long its taking to come back....i.e if someone is running a large report how much data is sent and how long it takes to return.
This is for 2000 SQL (i like to get all these results to build my migration plan and hardware configuration).
I like to see...........18 mb of data , date time and how much read / write etc if possible the sql.
Any ideas
The tools are:
SQL Server Profiler (search for Profiler in Books Online. There are many topics)
Performance Monitor
Also see SQL Server 2005 Books Online topics:
System Monitor Scenarios
How to: Correlate a Trace with Windows Performance Log Data (SQL Server Profiler)
I looked at profiler but could not get the results i really wanted....
I wanted totally bytes read and write and how long it takes the san to deliver
i.e it was say a 100 mb data request ....i was trying to figure out the SAN response to this.
|||
Look at Performance Monitor (perfmon). It's under Administrative tools on the Start/Programs menu.
Check out the LogicalDisk and System Performance Objects and the counters in the list for each. The topics I mentioned above have some help on aligning a Profiler trace with a perfmon trace if that's useful.
|||
I got the following to run
I think that get me in the right direction......
sql2012年3月19日星期一
Disater Recovery Solution using SQL
Hello,
For my DR soluion I am using an XP1024(Hitachi) array to sync data from
production site to DR site. My SQL servers take up a lot of bandwidth during
high business times with other applications. What is another way I can sync
the data from site A to site B? Is replication the answer?
Replication isn't recommended as a disaster recovery solution, all though it
can be used as such.
The main reasons are
1) not automatic failover
2) you have to reconfigure your apps to point to the new server
3) no system objects are replicated
4) not complete support for changing schemas - i.e. you can't change a pk
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
"Lontae Jones" <LontaeJones@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98B3CFB8-27DF-40A3-B21C-B48C7BE4EF26@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> For my DR soluion I am using an XP1024(Hitachi) array to sync data from
> production site to DR site. My SQL servers take up a lot of bandwidth
during
> high business times with other applications. What is another way I can
sync
> the data from site A to site B? Is replication the answer?
>
For my DR soluion I am using an XP1024(Hitachi) array to sync data from
production site to DR site. My SQL servers take up a lot of bandwidth during
high business times with other applications. What is another way I can sync
the data from site A to site B? Is replication the answer?
Replication isn't recommended as a disaster recovery solution, all though it
can be used as such.
The main reasons are
1) not automatic failover
2) you have to reconfigure your apps to point to the new server
3) no system objects are replicated
4) not complete support for changing schemas - i.e. you can't change a pk
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
"Lontae Jones" <LontaeJones@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98B3CFB8-27DF-40A3-B21C-B48C7BE4EF26@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> For my DR soluion I am using an XP1024(Hitachi) array to sync data from
> production site to DR site. My SQL servers take up a lot of bandwidth
during
> high business times with other applications. What is another way I can
sync
> the data from site A to site B? Is replication the answer?
>
2012年3月11日星期日
Disaster Recovery Question
Have cluster running on two servers; suppose I lost both of them, but have a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely making the restore function.
Have you tried this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
What happened when you tried before?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> Have cluster running on two servers; suppose I lost both of them, but have
a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
making the restore function.
|||One thing the cluster service wouldn't start.
We had people tell us that the drives weren't in the wrong order.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> Have you tried this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
> What happened when you tried before?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> "Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
> restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
> making the restore function.
>
>
|||One thing the cluster service wouldn't start.
We had people tell us that the drives weren't in the wrong order.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> Have you tried this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
> What happened when you tried before?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> "Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
> restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
> making the restore function.
>
>
Have you tried this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
What happened when you tried before?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> Have cluster running on two servers; suppose I lost both of them, but have
a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
making the restore function.
|||One thing the cluster service wouldn't start.
We had people tell us that the drives weren't in the wrong order.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> Have you tried this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
> What happened when you tried before?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> "Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
> restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
> making the restore function.
>
>
|||One thing the cluster service wouldn't start.
We had people tell us that the drives weren't in the wrong order.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> Have you tried this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;286422
> What happened when you tried before?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> "Sue" <Sue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C013ECA-FA78-4A11-ACCF-1E14CBAAFF48@.microsoft.com...
> a tape backup of the cluster. Does anyone have some thorough directions on
> restoring the cluster on different servers? We've had no luck in completely
> making the restore function.
>
>
Disaster recovery planning question
I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> > 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> > data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> > access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> > necessary.
> > My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> > server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> > databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> > to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> > instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> > be possible".
> > To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> > cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> > Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> > Thanks
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeeperworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> > 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> > data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> > access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> > necessary.
> > My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> > server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> > databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> > to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> > instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> > be possible".
> > To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> > cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> > Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> > Thanks
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeeperworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
Disaster recovery planning question
I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks
"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com
|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeeperworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks
"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com
|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeeperworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literature/lifekeeper_for_sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
Disaster recovery planning question
I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP MSA
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continu
e
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQ
L
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP M
SA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only ha
ve
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would conti
nue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this t
o
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literat..._sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeepe
rworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literat..._sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only have
access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off if
necessary.
My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if one
server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would continu
e
to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named SQ
L
instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this to
be possible".
To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
Thanks"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17E5CAFA-B1E0-4468-8CB8-7D320A46407C@.microsoft.com...
>I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP
>MSA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only
> have
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
> if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with a disaster recovery solution where - if
> one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would
> continue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
> SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this
> to
> be possible".
If he wants automatic yeah, you probably need clustering, or really good
scripting.
BUT, what you can do manually is simply "remap" those LUNS from Server A to
Server B.
Then attach the databases.
HOWEVER, there's some caveats. If Server A fails, the databases may not be
attachable because they weren't shutdown cleanly. But, it MIGHT work.. in
which case your recovery time is minutes, not longer (however long a RESTORE
from backup would take.)
As for Instances/DNS aliases.. possible. Different ways of doing that.
Note with multiple instances, you may hit licensing issues.
So in sum, with some planning it's certainly possible.
I've done this in non-disaster circumstances (i.e. clean database shutdown,
etc.)
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have two SQL 2000 Std servers (running on W2k3 Std) connected to an HP M
SA
> 500 G2 storage array. Each SQL server runs distinct/different DBs. The SQL
> data and logs are on RAID arrays in the storage array. The servers only ha
ve
> access to its own SQL disks/data through SSP but this could be turned off
if
> necessary.
> My mgr wants me to come up with adisaster recoverysolution where - if one
> server fails - then "the remaining SQL server can access the access the
> databases that reside on the shared array" and those databases would conti
nue
> to be live/available. The mgr believes "there should be a way using named
SQL
> instances and DNS aliases (or local hosts files on the servers) for this t
o
> be possible".
> To me it seems like he is looking for cluster functionality without a
> cluster and I can't get my mind around his proposed solution.
> Does anyone see a way to provide the functionality the mgr is seeking?
> Thanks
This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
from SteelEye Technology (my employer) called LifeKeeper Protection
Suite for Exchange. Using LifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.
LifeKeeper works with either shared storage (as in your case) or
replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
Here is a link with some more information.
http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literat..._sql_server.pdf
David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
Director of Product Management
www.steeleye.com|||On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, "daveberm" <david.berming...@.steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:42 pm, pdx <p...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This is definately a cluster issue as without some kind of IO fencing,
> both servers can not access the shared LUN at the same time. MSCS
> would do the trick here, however, since you are running SQL 2000
> Standard Edition, there is no support for clustering. You can solve
> this problem via a third party clustering solution, such as the one
> fromSteelEyeTechnology (my employer) calledLifeKeeperProtection
> Suite for Exchange. UsingLifeKeeper, the way we would configure your
> solution is to install a second instance of SQL on each of the servers
> which would be the backup for the other server's active instance.LifeKeepe
rworks with either shared storage (as in your case) or
> replicated storage, so your current hardware would be sufficient.
> Here is a link with some more information.
> http://www.steeleye.com/pdf/literat..._sql_server.pdf
> David A. Bermingham, MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
> Director of Product Managementwww.steeleye.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, LifeKeeper for SQL (not Exchange) is the product you need.
2012年3月8日星期四
Disaster Recovery
We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on e: on the working server bu
t are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
Thanks in advance,
-Dave
Hi
You MUST use SAME DISK CONFIGURATION, if you plan restore the master database!
The master database store file information for all databases, see sysdevices or sysdatabases table.
Andras Jakus MCDBA
"Dave" wrote:
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on e: on the working server
but are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
|||If it's just a test environment, you could try subst e: d:\
Not 100% sure is SQL Server will recognize this when doing the restore, but
it would be worth a shot.
HTH,
Morgan
"Dave" <Dave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0212D0EE-852A-444B-8E73-5BF8446C3C21@.microsoft.com...
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we
are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the
server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are
stored on e: on the working server but are being restore to d: on the test
server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing
this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate
e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
t are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
Thanks in advance,
-Dave
Hi
You MUST use SAME DISK CONFIGURATION, if you plan restore the master database!
The master database store file information for all databases, see sysdevices or sysdatabases table.
Andras Jakus MCDBA
"Dave" wrote:
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on e: on the working server
but are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
|||If it's just a test environment, you could try subst e: d:\
Not 100% sure is SQL Server will recognize this when doing the restore, but
it would be worth a shot.
HTH,
Morgan
"Dave" <Dave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0212D0EE-852A-444B-8E73-5BF8446C3C21@.microsoft.com...
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we
are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the
server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are
stored on e: on the working server but are being restore to d: on the test
server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing
this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate
e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
Disaster Recovery
I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.
Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>
|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.
Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>
|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.co...g_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
Disaster Recovery
We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are
running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server
to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on
e: on the working server bu
t are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore
be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with
the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure f
or doing this?
Thanks in advance,
-DaveHi
You MUST use SAME DISK CONFIGURATION, if you plan restore the master databas
e!
The master database store file information for all databases, see sysdevices
or sysdatabases table.
Andras Jakus MCDBA
"Dave" wrote:
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are runnin
g into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server to restore to
isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on e: on the working serv
er
but are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is
master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to l
ocate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave|||If it's just a test environment, you could try subst e: d:\
Not 100% sure is SQL Server will recognize this when doing the restore, but
it would be worth a shot.
HTH,
Morgan
"Dave" <Dave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0212D0EE-852A-444B-8E73-5BF8446C3C21@.microsoft.com...
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we
are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the
server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are
stored on e: on the working server but are being restore to d: on the test
server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing
this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate
e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server
to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on
e: on the working server bu
t are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore
be restored is master but after doing this the server will not restart with
the error message "Unable to locate e:". What is the recommended procedure f
or doing this?
Thanks in advance,
-DaveHi
You MUST use SAME DISK CONFIGURATION, if you plan restore the master databas
e!
The master database store file information for all databases, see sysdevices
or sysdatabases table.
Andras Jakus MCDBA
"Dave" wrote:
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we are runnin
g into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the server to restore to
isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are stored on e: on the working serv
er
but are being restore to d: on the test server. The first database to restore be restored is
master but after doing this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to l
ocate e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave|||If it's just a test environment, you could try subst e: d:\
Not 100% sure is SQL Server will recognize this when doing the restore, but
it would be worth a shot.
HTH,
Morgan
"Dave" <Dave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0212D0EE-852A-444B-8E73-5BF8446C3C21@.microsoft.com...
> We are trying to emulate a disk crash for one of our SQL servers but we
are running into some difficulty. The working server is clustered but the
server to restore to isn't. The databases (master, model, and msdb) are
stored on e: on the working server but are being restore to d: on the test
server. The first database to restore be restored is master but after doing
this the server will not restart with the error message "Unable to locate
e:". What is the recommended procedure for doing this?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Dave
Disaster Recovery
I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site
.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...og_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...og_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first ha
lf
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site
.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...og_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...og_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first ha
lf
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
Disaster Recovery
I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> > site.
> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> > solution for achieving this.
> >
> > which you recommend ?
> >
> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> >
> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> >
>
>|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Take a look at
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>>
>>
>>
>> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
>> in
>> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
>> >system
>> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
>> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
>> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
>> > site.
>> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
>> > solution for achieving this.
>> >
>> > which you recommend ?
>> >
>> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
>> >
>> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
>> >
>>|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi uri,
>> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
>> database
>> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
>> without
>> any data loss.
>> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Take a look at
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>>
>>
>>
>> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
>> in
>> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
>> >system
>> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
>> > and
>> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
>> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
>> > other
>> > site.
>> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
>> > solution for achieving this.
>> >
>> > which you recommend ?
>> >
>> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
>> >
>> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
>> >
>>
>|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> >
> > I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> > automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> > copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> > mirroring as your only choice.
> >
> > But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> > about choices from other vendors.
> >
> > Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hi uri,
> >> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> >> database
> >> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> >> without
> >> any data loss.
> >>
> >> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >>
> >> Take a look at
> >> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> >> in
> >> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> >> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
> >> >system
> >> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
> >> > and
> >> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> >> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
> >> > other
> >> > site.
> >> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> >> > solution for achieving this.
> >> >
> >> > which you recommend ?
> >> >
> >> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> >> >
> >> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > Ben
> > Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> > 2006.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> > >
> > > I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> > > automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> > > copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> > > mirroring as your only choice.
> > >
> > > But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> > > about choices from other vendors.
> > >
> > > Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> > >> Hi uri,
> > >> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> > >> database
> > >> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> > >> without
> > >> any data loss.
> > >>
> > >> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Take a look at
> > >> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> > >> in
> > >> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> > >> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
> > >> >system
> > >> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
> > >> > and
> > >> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> > >> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
> > >> > other
> > >> > site.
> > >> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> > >> > solution for achieving this.
> > >> >
> > >> > which you recommend ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other site.
what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
solution for achieving this.
which you recommend ?
Pls SHARE your opinion.
Note:cost is not a constarint.Take a look at
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> site.
> what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> solution for achieving this.
> which you recommend ?
> Pls SHARE your opinion.
> Note:cost is not a constarint.
>|||Hi uri,
I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for database
but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site without
any data loss.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Take a look at
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise system
> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
> > site.
> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> > solution for achieving this.
> >
> > which you recommend ?
> >
> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> >
> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> >
>
>|||If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
mirroring as your only choice.
But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
about choices from other vendors.
Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
"bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi uri,
> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> database
> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> without
> any data loss.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Take a look at
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>>
>>
>>
>> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
>> in
>> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
>> >system
>> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS) and
>> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
>> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in other
>> > site.
>> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
>> > solution for achieving this.
>> >
>> > which you recommend ?
>> >
>> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
>> >
>> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
>> >
>>|||Ben
Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
2006.
"Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> mirroring as your only choice.
> But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> about choices from other vendors.
> Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>
>
> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi uri,
>> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
>> database
>> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
>> without
>> any data loss.
>> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Take a look at
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
>>
>>
>>
>> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
>> in
>> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
>> >system
>> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
>> > and
>> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
>> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
>> > other
>> > site.
>> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
>> > solution for achieving this.
>> >
>> > which you recommend ?
>> >
>> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
>> >
>> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
>> >
>>
>|||I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
the technology.
In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
isn't?
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ben
> Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> 2006.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> >
> > I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> > automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> > copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> > mirroring as your only choice.
> >
> > But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> > about choices from other vendors.
> >
> > Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hi uri,
> >> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> >> database
> >> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> >> without
> >> any data loss.
> >>
> >> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >>
> >> Take a look at
> >> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> >> in
> >> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> >> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
> >> >system
> >> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
> >> > and
> >> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> >> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
> >> > other
> >> > site.
> >> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> >> > solution for achieving this.
> >> >
> >> > which you recommend ?
> >> >
> >> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> >> >
> >> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||Hi Guys,
any body used third party tools like veritas,nevefail or xosoft to achieve
this.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> I know. But it is December already, so right now it is a good time to test
> the technology.
> In addition, the original request mentions a SQL Server 2000 instalation.
> So, in order to get benefit of database mirroring an upgrade is required,
> isn't?
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > Ben
> > Database Mirroring will be available for production only in the first half
> > 2006.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@.sjm.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23Hg7NpX%23FHA.500@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > If your requirements are automatic failover without data loss then ...
> > >
> > > I understand that only Failover Clustering and Database Mirroring provide
> > > automatic failover with no data loss. But failover clustering has only one
> > > copy of the database. So, for your requirements that leaves database
> > > mirroring as your only choice.
> > >
> > > But here I am talking only about SQL Server technologies. I do not know
> > > about choices from other vendors.
> > >
> > > Benjamin Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > > message news:DB2A7267-4DC7-4827-B2E7-E2C00A81852B@.microsoft.com...
> > >> Hi uri,
> > >> I am already having cluster,log sipping, replication configured for
> > >> database
> > >> but what i am looking for is a automatic failover to different site
> > >> without
> > >> any data loss.
> > >>
> > >> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Take a look at
> > >> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "bijupg@.hotmail.com" <bijupghotmailcom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> > >> in
> > >> message news:385E5814-498C-429B-8A2D-3145EC2CFAFA@.microsoft.com...
> > >> >I am planing to implement a disaster recovery site for my enterprise
> > >> >system
> > >> > consisting of database servers( sql server 2000) , web servers(IIS)
> > >> > and
> > >> > application servers, all on microsoft platforms.
> > >> > in case of any disaster it should failover to the other server in
> > >> > other
> > >> > site.
> > >> > what about using third party solution like Neverfail or Xosoft ,Vertas
> > >> > solution for achieving this.
> > >> >
> > >> > which you recommend ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Pls SHARE your opinion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Note:cost is not a constarint.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Disaster - Recovery Order of events
we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005 development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the DBs. I am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore user DBs before master and MSDB?
Thanks,
CarlosGenerally, you restore master first, then model(if you made any changes to it), and msdb. After that, all the user databases should be restored. THis goes for SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.|||Generally I have a standby box|||lucky little %^*)|||lucky little %^*)
He didn't say WHAT kind of box. It's actually a box of 64 crayola crayons.
Regards,
hmscott|||i thought the first thing to do was to start blaming other people. maybe followed by some frantic yelling all around the office.
maybe Brett has a squeezebox. But wait, if he has a squeezebox who doesn't sleep at night? I am confused. Back to writing code.
Thanks,
CarlosGenerally, you restore master first, then model(if you made any changes to it), and msdb. After that, all the user databases should be restored. THis goes for SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.|||Generally I have a standby box|||lucky little %^*)|||lucky little %^*)
He didn't say WHAT kind of box. It's actually a box of 64 crayola crayons.
Regards,
hmscott|||i thought the first thing to do was to start blaming other people. maybe followed by some frantic yelling all around the office.
maybe Brett has a squeezebox. But wait, if he has a squeezebox who doesn't sleep at night? I am confused. Back to writing code.
Disaster - Recovery Order of events
we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005
development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the DBs. I
am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore user
DBs before master and MSDB?
Thanks,
CarlosHi
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:580A4901-C15A-4694-8EBF-A9E84B7075E1@.microsoft.com...
> we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005
> development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the
> DBs. I
> am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore
> user
> DBs before master and MSDB?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Uri
Carlos
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:580A4901-C15A-4694-8EBF-A9E84B7075E1@.microsoft.com...
> > we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005
> > development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the
> > DBs. I
> > am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore
> > user
> > DBs before master and MSDB?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carlos
>
>
development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the DBs. I
am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore user
DBs before master and MSDB?
Thanks,
CarlosHi
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:580A4901-C15A-4694-8EBF-A9E84B7075E1@.microsoft.com...
> we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005
> development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the
> DBs. I
> am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore
> user
> DBs before master and MSDB?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Uri
Carlos
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190190.aspx
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:580A4901-C15A-4694-8EBF-A9E84B7075E1@.microsoft.com...
> > we are trying to simulate a disater recovery of our SQL2000 and SQL2005
> > development servers. Which is the order in which we should restore the
> > DBs. I
> > am talking specifically of MSDB, master and user DBs; should we restore
> > user
> > DBs before master and MSDB?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carlos
>
>
Disappearing SQL EM registrations
I'm having problems with all of my registered servers in
SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still
in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K |
Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer
registered.
I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K
EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this
problem occur before and I created a .REG file
on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL
Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I
tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
register.
It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows /
Novell password after the password has expired. I
changed my password when I got into work this morning (it
had expired) and all of my registered servers had
disappeared. I then registered one server and had our
security folks reset my password and force me to reset
it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the
server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that
this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
I've had at least two other people I work with experience
the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and
Novell.
Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind
of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my
password changes.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com| I'm having problems with all of my registered servers in
| SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still
| in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K |
| Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer
| registered.
|
| I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K
| EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this
| problem occur before and I created a .REG file
| on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL
| Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I
| tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
| register.
|
| It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows /
| Novell password after the password has expired. I
| changed my password when I got into work this morning (it
| had expired) and all of my registered servers had
| disappeared. I then registered one server and had our
| security folks reset my password and force me to reset
| it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the
| server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that
| this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
|
| I've had at least two other people I work with experience
| the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and
| Novell.
|
| Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind
| of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my
| password changes.
|
| Thanks in advance,
|
| Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com
--
Hi Mike,
You problem could be related to:
FIX: Registered Remote Servers Disappear from SQL Enterprise Manager in
Windows XP When Non-Domain User Password is Changed
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
SQL Server support|||>--Original Message--
>| I'm having problems with all of my registered servers in >| SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still >| in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K | >| Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer >| registered.
>| >| I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K >| EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this >| problem occur before and I created a .REG file >| on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL >| Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I >| tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
>| register.
>| >| It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows / >| Novell password after the password has expired. I >| changed my password when I got into work this morning (it >| had expired) and all of my registered servers had >| disappeared. I then registered one server and had our >| security folks reset my password and force me to reset >| it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the >| server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that >| this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
>| >| I've had at least two other people I work with experience >| the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and >| Novell.
>| >| Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind >| of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my >| password changes.
>| >| Thanks in advance,
>| >| Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com
>--
>Hi Mike,
>You problem could be related to:
>FIX: Registered Remote Servers Disappear from SQL Enterprise Manager in >Windows XP When Non-Domain User Password is Changed
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=3D323280
>Hope this helps,
>--
>Eric C=E1rdenas
>SQL Server support
>.
>
I already had SP3 installed. I make the registry hack and expired my password, then changed my password. The server registrations were still there!!
Thanks for the input / help.
Mike
SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still
in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K |
Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer
registered.
I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K
EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this
problem occur before and I created a .REG file
on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL
Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I
tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
register.
It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows /
Novell password after the password has expired. I
changed my password when I got into work this morning (it
had expired) and all of my registered servers had
disappeared. I then registered one server and had our
security folks reset my password and force me to reset
it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the
server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that
this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
I've had at least two other people I work with experience
the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and
Novell.
Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind
of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my
password changes.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com| I'm having problems with all of my registered servers in
| SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still
| in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K |
| Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer
| registered.
|
| I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K
| EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this
| problem occur before and I created a .REG file
| on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL
| Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I
| tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
| register.
|
| It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows /
| Novell password after the password has expired. I
| changed my password when I got into work this morning (it
| had expired) and all of my registered servers had
| disappeared. I then registered one server and had our
| security folks reset my password and force me to reset
| it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the
| server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that
| this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
|
| I've had at least two other people I work with experience
| the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and
| Novell.
|
| Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind
| of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my
| password changes.
|
| Thanks in advance,
|
| Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com
--
Hi Mike,
You problem could be related to:
FIX: Registered Remote Servers Disappear from SQL Enterprise Manager in
Windows XP When Non-Domain User Password is Changed
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=323280
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
SQL Server support|||>--Original Message--
>| I'm having problems with all of my registered servers in >| SQL Server 2000 EM disappear. The 'framework' is still >| in place, ie. 'Microsoft SQL Servers | SQL 2K | >| Production, etc.', but the servers are no longer >| registered.
>| >| I have both SQL 7.0 and 2K servers registered in SQL 2K >| EM, both of which are disappearing. I've had this >| problem occur before and I created a .REG file >| on 'HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL >| Server\80\Tools\SQLEW\Registered Servers X'. I >| tried "executing" the file, but the servers didn't re-
>| register.
>| >| It appears to happen whenever I change my Windows / >| Novell password after the password has expired. I >| changed my password when I got into work this morning (it >| had expired) and all of my registered servers had >| disappeared. I then registered one server and had our >| security folks reset my password and force me to reset >| it. I changed my password and re-logged in and the >| server was still registered, hence my hypothesis that >| this problem only occurs after the password has expired.
>| >| I've had at least two other people I work with experience >| the same problem, and we're all logging into Windows and >| Novell.
>| >| Any suggestions would be appreciated!! I'm getting kind >| of tired of re-registering 70+ SQL Servers every time my >| password changes.
>| >| Thanks in advance,
>| >| Mike Stuart - mstuart@.gates.com
>--
>Hi Mike,
>You problem could be related to:
>FIX: Registered Remote Servers Disappear from SQL Enterprise Manager in >Windows XP When Non-Domain User Password is Changed
>http://support.microsoft.com/?id=3D323280
>Hope this helps,
>--
>Eric C=E1rdenas
>SQL Server support
>.
>
I already had SP3 installed. I make the registry hack and expired my password, then changed my password. The server registrations were still there!!
Thanks for the input / help.
Mike
订阅：
博文 (Atom)