Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
repairer
Starting Member
8 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-05-22 : 11:04:54
|
| Hi,First of all apologies if this is posted in the wrong area, I was not sure if to post it here or new to SQL as I am very new to it, but here goes.I manage a company that provides a web based application to our customers, the application uses SQL 2005 Enterprise. It would seem the application is very resource intensive, the appication is run on one server the database on another, after previous experiences of trying to run both on the same server it would seem this is now the right solution and the poor speed we experienced in the past is now not much of a problem.Now down to my issue, we back up the database every night, this is a real concern to me as any loss of data would be catastrophic.I have read on certain web pages the it is possible to replicate the SQL database as it is updated, this would seem to me to be the ideal solution, in fact it seems the only solution to me, however, I am informed by my developers that this will not work as it is too resource intensive and will slow down the server to the extent it will become unusable, they are recomending having a link which sends data across to another server every 15 mins.Basically what I am asking for is a second opinion, is replication so resource intensive, are my guys giving me accurate information? We have around 150 users logged onto our web server at a time, fair to say not all will be entering data at same time.Any help / views would be much appreciated.P.S. Just read through some of the other posts, maybe should make it clear what I am trying to do, I want to replicate the database so in the event our main server went down we could switch users very quickly to another server running the latest data.ThanksPete |
|
|
mualsh
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 2009-05-22 : 13:02:34
|
| Based on your problem description, replication should be able to provide you with the solution (probably not the most elegant one) that you are looking for. Just so that you understand, replication is a technology meant for data distribution and so there will always be data latency between the primary and the replicated server. This can translate to potential data loss should your primary server go down before the data has replicated over. So, in essence with replication you are settling for a warm standby as oppose to hot standby and therefore some downtime of your website.There are other (high availability / high data protection) solutions that can be used to protect your data and maximize the uptime of your system. Depending on how sophisticated you want to get you could take a look at failover clustering, database mirroring (“having a link” approach that your developers are recommending and if configured appropriately can provide hot standby and automatic failover without any human intervention), log shipping, etc. Here is a link that should give you a better understanding of the various options:http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoftbob/archive/2008/06/21/sql-server-2005-high-availability-options-distilled.aspxHope this helps and if have any further questions or need more understanding please feel free to post your questions / concerns. Good luck !! |
 |
|
|
repairer
Starting Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-02 : 05:57:11
|
| Hi,mualsh, many thanks for your reply, will look at the web site you sent.Kind regardsPete |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replication of database