| Author |
Message |
Scott Jucovics
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:36 am Post subject:
Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (without SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with SAN or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:41 am Post subject:
Re: Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
Scott, I am lost. Sounds like you already know the issues and answers. What
do you want from us? Except no NAS with SQL clustering.
Do number 3 or regret it your whole life!! Is that what you wanted to hear?
LOL!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OuekBCI5EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (without SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with SAN or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Jucovics
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:06 am Post subject:
Re: Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
Cost is always a concern, and using other tools like "CoStandBy" by Legato
or other solutions may be a viable solution for a business before making the
expensive leap to SAN. Just trying to hear other suggetions
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OiSucEI5EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Scott, I am lost. Sounds like you already know the issues and answers.
What
do you want from us? Except no NAS with SQL clustering.
Do number 3 or regret it your whole life!! Is that what you wanted to
hear?
LOL!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OuekBCI5EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (without
SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with SAN
or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a
decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run
from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:15 am Post subject:
Re: Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
Ok, that then boils down to support, use third party and have rely on third
party support. Use only MSCS on a SAN and MS will help you. I actually like
Microsoft Support, a lot.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O9EH7SI5EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Cost is always a concern, and using other tools like "CoStandBy" by Legato
or other solutions may be a viable solution for a business before making
the
expensive leap to SAN. Just trying to hear other suggetions
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OiSucEI5EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Scott, I am lost. Sounds like you already know the issues and answers.
What
do you want from us? Except no NAS with SQL clustering.
Do number 3 or regret it your whole life!! Is that what you wanted to
hear?
LOL!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OuekBCI5EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (without
SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with SAN
or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a
decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run
from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is
always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Jucovics
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:27 am Post subject:
Re: Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
What about using a Shared SCSI Array instead of a SAN?
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OEPq9XI5EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Ok, that then boils down to support, use third party and have rely on
third
party support. Use only MSCS on a SAN and MS will help you. I actually
like
Microsoft Support, a lot.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O9EH7SI5EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cost is always a concern, and using other tools like "CoStandBy" by
Legato
or other solutions may be a viable solution for a business before making
the
expensive leap to SAN. Just trying to hear other suggetions
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OiSucEI5EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Scott, I am lost. Sounds like you already know the issues and answers.
What
do you want from us? Except no NAS with SQL clustering.
Do number 3 or regret it your whole life!! Is that what you wanted to
hear?
LOL!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OuekBCI5EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the
best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS
SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over
capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode
(without
SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with
SAN
or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a
decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run
from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is
always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:35 am Post subject:
Re: Recommended Architecture DB servers |
|
|
Much better price point, more down time during a failover. Fully supported
and works great.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uWpPaeI5EHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | What about using a Shared SCSI Array instead of a SAN?
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OEPq9XI5EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Ok, that then boils down to support, use third party and have rely on
third
party support. Use only MSCS on a SAN and MS will help you. I actually
like
Microsoft Support, a lot.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O9EH7SI5EHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cost is always a concern, and using other tools like "CoStandBy" by
Legato
or other solutions may be a viable solution for a business before
making
the
expensive leap to SAN. Just trying to hear other suggetions
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OiSucEI5EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Scott, I am lost. Sounds like you already know the issues and answers.
What
do you want from us? Except no NAS with SQL clustering.
Do number 3 or regret it your whole life!! Is that what you wanted to
hear?
LOL!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Scott Jucovics" <sjucovics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OuekBCI5EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I have a load balancer, 2 web servers and I trying to determine the
best
backend database architecture, here are my 3 choices.
1. 2 Identical database servers running MS Windows Server, MS
SQL
Server 2000 and Double-Take (NSI Software) with Fail-Over
capabilities
2. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode
(without
SAN
or NAS)
3. 2 Windows Servers Clustered in an Active/Passive mode (with
SAN
or
NAS)
I realize that option 3 is the obvious answer, but I must make a
decision
based on planning and cost considerations. SAN technologies can run
from
$20k - $100k+
Main consideration is having a production database server that is
always
available.
Any suggestions or insight is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in