Bill Arnold <> wrote: >> Stephen, The two server are mounted in the same rack. They are used >> for a broadcast TV automation system. The SQL servers hold the >> Metadata for video recording and playback. >> The Metadata comes from user input, IP based Internet and satellites >> feeds, Baseband recordings from tape or live broadcasts, automated >> video ingestion and automation control. >> We aren't looked for two systems updating one database at the same >> time; we are looking for real time redundancy to protect use from >> hardware failure. We are trying to eliminate a singe point of >> failure and these servers are the last piece to the puzzle. > > > Have you considered Raid, with hot swappable disks? As I understand > Raid, that would give you enough redundancy to rebuild failed drives. > With the drives covered, you could possibly keep some spare parts in > inventory for other points of failure. >
Perfect fit for a cluster. You just need to have a data source that can be seen by both servers. We used a powervault that had both SCSI going to three raids on the PV. Data, Logs, and the necessary partition for the cluster itself. This is exactly what M$ wrote Win2003 to do and SQL Server 2000 or 2005 fits right in. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
