ahwind
asked on
Redundant SQL Server
Dear All,
I have an application (developed using VB.net) that use MS SQL Server 2005 as the DBMS. One of the requirement is we have to ensure high availability of SQL Server. When one of the node is down, the secondary node should take over the role automatically. In addition, both of the database reside in different node should sychronize in real-time basics so that the data that i retrieve from the active node is the same. I think my application just have to connect to the virtual server whereby i do not care which node is active. How can i take advantage from feature of MS SQL Server 2005 to satisfy this requirement? Can anyone provide me a most cost effective solution to implement it? which edition of MS SQL Server 2005 and OS?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks a lot.
I have an application (developed using VB.net) that use MS SQL Server 2005 as the DBMS. One of the requirement is we have to ensure high availability of SQL Server. When one of the node is down, the secondary node should take over the role automatically. In addition, both of the database reside in different node should sychronize in real-time basics so that the data that i retrieve from the active node is the same. I think my application just have to connect to the virtual server whereby i do not care which node is active. How can i take advantage from feature of MS SQL Server 2005 to satisfy this requirement? Can anyone provide me a most cost effective solution to implement it? which edition of MS SQL Server 2005 and OS?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks a lot.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I forgot to mention why there are 4 options. With Log Shipping you can either use what Microsoft provides or roll your own(RYO). In SQL Server 2000 you would use the RYO option for Standard Edition. Since Microsoft now includes Log Shipping in Standard Edition, RYO is now primarily something you would do with Express Edition. Now personally I think the people costs of RYO log shipping would exceed the cost of WorkGroup. Unless this is an ISV where the people costs are leveraged over a large number of installations.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Thanks bbao. But you do not need to double your software licensing costs with a SQL cluster. SQL Server does NOT require a separate license for the passive node of a cluster.
hi hberenson,
you are right, NO need to buy a separate license for the PASSIVE node of an active/passive cluster. MS has introduced a processor-based licensing model for its .NET enterprise server products (including SQL2K/2K5):
"Licensing for a Failover Cluster Configuration
If your organization uses SQL Server 2000 in a failover cluster configuration, this means servers are clustered together to pick up each others' processing if one computer fails, in this situation, you have special licensing considerations. This option is only available in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition.
Failover clustering support can be configured two ways:
* Active/Active. This option allows all servers in the failover cluster to regularly process information. When a server fails, one server or more takes on the additional workload of the failed server.
* Active/Passive. This option is characterized by at least one server in the cluster that do not regularly process information, but waits to pick up the workload when an Active server fails.
All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true
you are right, NO need to buy a separate license for the PASSIVE node of an active/passive cluster. MS has introduced a processor-based licensing model for its .NET enterprise server products (including SQL2K/2K5):
"Licensing for a Failover Cluster Configuration
If your organization uses SQL Server 2000 in a failover cluster configuration, this means servers are clustered together to pick up each others' processing if one computer fails, in this situation, you have special licensing considerations. This option is only available in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition.
Failover clustering support can be configured two ways:
* Active/Active. This option allows all servers in the failover cluster to regularly process information. When a server fails, one server or more takes on the additional workload of the failed server.
* Active/Passive. This option is characterized by at least one server in the cluster that do not regularly process information, but waits to pick up the workload when an Active server fails.
All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true
Yup. I'm the one who came up with the "no need to license a passive cluster node" scheme in SQL Server 2000.