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 |
|
Bex
Aged Yak Warrior
580 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-10-11 : 09:02:50
|
| We are outsourcing the hosting of our databases. We are to eventually have two sites, although at present, only the one will be set up. One of our clients has insisted on creating a mechanism to ensure that should something happen at the site, we have a standby server that has an up to date version of this particular database (which is currently about 350mb). I need to come up with a solution to ensure that the standby server is up to date (somehow minimal amount of data is transferred over the network). Therefore, what options do we have that can do this over a 2mb network and without having a linked server set up with the database server at the host location (as this may not be allowed)? I have thought of the following solutions, but am not sure which is best, would work, will be allowed, etc:Replication over the two sites Log shippingSchedule differential/tansactional back-ups to occur and store on the remote server (and run over the weekend when not in use)ThanksHearty head pats |
|
|
Bex
Aged Yak Warrior
580 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-11 : 10:11:56
|
| Oh, and I forgot to say, at present, we don't need a copy of the whole server, only a single database (although this may change in the future).Hearty head pats |
 |
|
|
mcrowley
Aged Yak Warrior
771 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-11 : 11:08:46
|
| Log shipping tends to get finicky, and replication will not get changes to stored procedures.As bad as it was to set up on a clustered server, Double-Take from NSI software has done well for us. |
|
|
|
Bex
Aged Yak Warrior
580 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-11 : 11:25:45
|
| Thankyou for the info! I am looking at the website now to see if this is somethign that can help us. I think my main concern is the low network bandwidth (2mb), as I don't want to be transferring large amounts of data over such a small bandwidth. What exactly does this software offer over the alternatives? Is it becuase it handles the 'keeping the servers in sync' as opposed to having to manually oversee it?Hearty head pats |
|
|
|
mcrowley
Aged Yak Warrior
771 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-11 : 11:42:44
|
| Replication probably has the least bandwidth requirement of the options on the table (log shipping, Replication, and Double-Take). If log shipping gets out of sync for any reason, you will have to send down a new (full) copy of the database. I do not use log shipping, so I will have to let others speak for how often that happens.As I said about replication, it will not pick up changes you may make to stored procedures or UDFs. Double-Take just gets the entire file, and sends changes byte by byte in about real-time.Gads! I am starting to sound like a salesman. |
|
|
|
Bex
Aged Yak Warrior
580 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-11 : 12:00:58
|
| That sounds very promising! Thank you for this, I shall definately look into it further!Hearty head pats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creating a warm standby solution