| Author |
Topic |
|
Soumen Dey
Starting Member
20 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-10-04 : 01:20:35
|
| Hi,I've a scenario where an application would access the database but the database should be backed up at different time of the day. I want to have an architecture where the database should be maintained in two different machines so that when the backup is taken the application should interact with the database in the other machine and later on the database would be synchronized between the two machines. Can any one help me by giving some adviceThanks |
|
|
scullee
Posting Yak Master
103 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 02:01:15
|
| You can back up a SQL Server database while people are accessing it. I dont see why you would need the second machine. |
 |
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 02:26:08
|
| from what i understand you need:2 machines, one will take the load off machine A while it is being maintained so that there won't be any interruptions during scheduled maintenance jobs? i suggest clustering.if you're need is simple backup, then as scullee mentioned, you can backup your database while users are accessing it, but schedule this during off peak hours.else provide us with more details on what you intend to do. |
|
|
|
Soumen Dey
Starting Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 03:14:13
|
| Thanks, for your suggestion, even I thought of clustering but I would like to know which type of clustering should I implement ? Is it active/active or active/passive, I do not have a clear idea , can u help me by sending any tutorial or any diagrams |
|
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 06:34:33
|
| i learned clustering only by searching google also, search this forum, i think it has been posted before.also check books online...just to start you up, you may want to explore active/passive first, based from your initial post. others go for active/active since the other node can accomodate other processes instead of waiting for a failover to occur. in our case, we implement active/passive, it's much easier to manage and troubleshoot. |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 09:47:14
|
| Active / Active == Load BalancingActive / Passive == Fault ToleranceMichael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
surefooted
Posting Yak Master
188 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 13:17:03
|
| Active\Active is SQL 2000 is not really a true active\active in that sense considering SQL server 2000 is a shared nothing architecture.-JonNow a "Yak Posting Veteran". |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 14:10:15
|
| Jon IndeedLoad balancing with SQL server is kinda tricky from what I've read.As far as what the user is trying to accomplish here, I'd say instead of trying to setup load balanced SQL servers or something like that, just spend that money on a single fast Active / Passive setup and run backups and the live system on the same database. It's going to make things MUCH easier to deal with.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 14:17:18
|
| Why do you need to run the database on another server while a backup is running? Hot backups don't slow the system down very much and shouldn't be noticed by the users. You do not need to move to another server during them. We backup our transaction logs every 15 minutes without any performance problems and full backups once per day.Tara |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 14:20:46
|
| Like Tara said, hot backups are not too bad. Having two hot machines would be difficult.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
|
Load Balancing