All geek questions in one place

Multi-user failover server?

I'm not a database administrator, so this might be a dumb question, but I will ask anyway. We upgrade our SQL servers from 2000 to 2005, and we are likely to use database replication or database mirroring. Our database administrator would like to “damage” the backup server, which means that he would like to increase our capabilities and capabilities by running other database applications on the backup server, since “he will still be sitting there” (his words, not mine) Is that such a good idea? Now our main application server uses only one instance containing more than 50 databases. As far as I understand, what we are doing now and what our DBA offers for a fault-tolerant server is a bad idea, because all these databases share memory, processors and workspaces.If one application starts to behave badly, other databases may suffer.

Any thoughts?

+3
source share
5 answers

Is this really a business question to answer? Is a slower application better than an application if you cannot afford the cost of additional hardware?

Backup and mirrored db can be used for reporting. Using it, since db failover can work if you have enough margin of safety (i.e. both databases will work conveniently on the server)

+1
source

Will you depend on these additional applications? Where do they run in case of failure?

0
source

.

, , , , . , . (, RAID), , 5 , 6, 1). , .

, - , ( , - "" ), sql exhcange ( ) .

0

, , . 50 . , , , , , , .

, SQL Server. Active/Active .

/ ?

/ SQL Server , SQL Server . SQL Server , SQL-. SQL- , SQL Server . , SQL Server .

SQL-, node. node , node .

SQL Server

, MSDN

0

" "

, ...

. , Active/Active sql, / .

db . - /, WMI. , .

0

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1709609/

More articles:


All Articles