active/passive cluster vs log shipping

Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
running fine.
I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup for
a new client and am faced with what method to go with?
What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering and
log shipping?
To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I do
not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
licenses, so that should cut down some expense.
Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?
To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive i.e.
2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case if
all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference is
between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?
Any advice here is much appreciated.
thanks!
P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k, but
migrate to 2005 when it releases.
Careful with the term active/passive. We now use single-instance or
multi-instance. If you have multi-instance, this means you have more than
one instance in the cluster, likely one instance per node. The cluster
basically takes care of failover on its own. With log-shipping, there is
manual intervention and users are down until you notice the problem, hop in
your car and drive to the data centre.
Log shipping is good for disaster recovery, where you need to establish a
remote DR site.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OkUGMI8ZFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
running fine.
I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup for
a new client and am faced with what method to go with?
What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering and
log shipping?
To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I do
not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
licenses, so that should cut down some expense.
Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?
To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive i.e.
2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case if
all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference is
between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?
Any advice here is much appreciated.
thanks!
P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k, but
migrate to 2005 when it releases.
|||Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
network and update a dns record to point the database server to the standby
server and you are done
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uMFQyM8ZFHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Careful with the term active/passive. We now use single-instance or
> multi-instance. If you have multi-instance, this means you have more than
> one instance in the cluster, likely one instance per node. The cluster
> basically takes care of failover on its own. With log-shipping, there is
> manual intervention and users are down until you notice the problem, hop
> in
> your car and drive to the data centre.
> Log shipping is good for disaster recovery, where you need to establish a
> remote DR site.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> <param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OkUGMI8ZFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
> active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
> successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
> edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
> running fine.
> I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup
> for
> a new client and am faced with what method to go with?
> What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering
> and
> log shipping?
> To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
> windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I
> do
> not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
> licenses, so that should cut down some expense.
> Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?
> To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive
> i.e.
> 2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case
> if
> all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference
> is
> between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?
> Any advice here is much appreciated.
> thanks!
> P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k,
> but
> migrate to 2005 when it releases.
>
>
|||As long as you _can_ remote in...
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23BzVoZ8ZFHA.1088@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
network and update a dns record to point the database server to the standby
server and you are done
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uMFQyM8ZFHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Careful with the term active/passive. We now use single-instance or
> multi-instance. If you have multi-instance, this means you have more than
> one instance in the cluster, likely one instance per node. The cluster
> basically takes care of failover on its own. With log-shipping, there is
> manual intervention and users are down until you notice the problem, hop
> in
> your car and drive to the data centre.
> Log shipping is good for disaster recovery, where you need to establish a
> remote DR site.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> <param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OkUGMI8ZFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi all, I am trying to weigh the pros and cons vs implementing a sql
> active/passive cluster & using log shipping as a failover strategy. I have
> successfully setup a custom log shipping infrastructure using sql standard
> edition and windows server 2003 standard edition for a client and it is
> running fine.
> I am in the process of specing out and implementing a sql database setup
> for
> a new client and am faced with what method to go with?
> What are the pros & cons from a failover perspective between clustering
> and
> log shipping?
> To go with clustering I would have to go with enterprise edition of both
> windows and sql. Luckily the data center is providing a shared SAN, so I
> do
> not have to invest in that. Also, they are leasing us the sql enterprise
> licenses, so that should cut down some expense.
> Do I get any performance gains with going with clustering vs log shipping?
> To my understanding clustering a sql database is always active/passive
> i.e.
> 2 sql servers can never be load balanced for performance. So in that case
> if
> all I need is failover wouldnt log shipping do it? I guess the difference
> is
> between going down for 5 mins vs going down for 20 mins?
> Any advice here is much appreciated.
> thanks!
> P.S. I do not know if this helps any, but we will start off with sql2k,
> but
> migrate to 2005 when it releases.
>
>
|||So assuming I could remote in, what other benefits do clustering provide me
over log shipping? Is down time the only one?
thanks
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23fQEQ18ZFHA.3068@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As long as you _can_ remote in...
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> <param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23BzVoZ8ZFHA.1088@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
> network and update a dns record to point the database server to the
> standby
> server and you are done
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:uMFQyM8ZFHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||In addition to down-time reduction, you have the benefit of faster upgrades
while keeping the system up. For example, let's say you need to apply a
service pack to the OS. Assuming that things are running on node 1, apply
the SP to node 2, move the groups to node 2 and then apply the SP to node 1.
Total down time is the time it took to move the groups (under 1 min). Also,
you could add a node and remove a node to the cluster to upgrade the
hardware (assuming Windows 2000 Data Centre or Windows 2003 Enterprise).
You can run, say, 1 SQL instance on 1 node and another instance on the
other. While not load-balancing in the purest sense of the term, this does
distribute the workload.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:uaOhCj$ZFHA.664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So assuming I could remote in, what other benefits do clustering provide me
over log shipping? Is down time the only one?
thanks
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23fQEQ18ZFHA.3068@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As long as you _can_ remote in...
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> <param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23BzVoZ8ZFHA.1088@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Or instead of hop in a car and drive to the data center, remote into the
> network and update a dns record to point the database server to the
> standby
> server and you are done
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:uMFQyM8ZFHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>

Active /Pasive vs Active/Active

Hi,
we have 2 node Active/pasive cluster system, and thinking to convert it to
active/active. In order to determine all pros/Cons I'm trying to find out all
comparison issues.
Any article,comment on this, will be appreciated.
Thanks
Banu
With instances in SQL Server 2000, come two new concepts for failover clustering:
* Single instance cluster: replaces an active/passive cluster. A single instance cluster means there is one SQL Server 2000 virtual server installed.
* Multiple instance cluster: replaces an active/active cluster. A multiple instance cluster is one in which there is more than one SQL Server 2000 virtual server installed. Because of the way the implementation of
clustering is different with SQL Server 2000, using the active/active terminology does not really apply.
Here is some info that you may find helpful
Single-Instance Cluster
A single-instance cluster has only one active instance of SQL Server owned by a single server node, and all other nodes of the cluster are in a wait state. Another node is enabled in the event of a failure on the active
node, or during a manual failover for maintenance.
Multiple-Instance Cluster
A multiple-instance cluster has up to four server nodes and supports up to 16 instances (1 default, 15 named or 16 named). Each SQL Server 2000 virtual server requires its own disk resources that cannot be used by
other instances. These disk resources are the logical drive names (for example, drive F:\) used by SQL Server on which to store data and log files. Separate physical disk sets are needed to make up the logical
drive, unless your disk subsystem supports multiple logical drives on one physical drive set. SQL Server in a clustered environment also behaves differently from a stand-alone named instance in relation to IP ports.
During the installation process, a dynamic port that may be something other than 1433 is configured, and that port number is reserved for the instance.
For additional information, refer to
Microsoft Whitepaper - SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Specifically read the following sections in the whitepaper
* Memory Configuration
-This section presents considerations for memory usage in a SQL Server 2000 failover cluster.
* Processor Capacity
* Using More Than Two Nodes
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx