RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Thanks, I have copied our IT guy so he can put your info to work. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Tierno-Culda Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:45 AM To: profox@leafe.com Subject:RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication Jim, I used DATACLAS for our applications talking to SQL. It has a table that says what server you should talk to. When one goes down, I update the table to talk to the other server. All users were up and running in 5 minutes when one of the servers went down. A word of warning though, if the server that is hosting the replication goes down, you will need to rebuild it. Though, I can say I rebuild the replication once a year because it leaves stuff and the database grows. I keep saying I am going to do more research on this go get some sprocs to clean it up better, but never seem to find the time. We have been using replication for years. I think it is a wonderful tool. Dawn >Jim Felton <> wrote: > Dawn, we are looking at SQL 2000 replication right now. Can it be > setup to do an automatic roll over to the backup server if the main > server fails? -Original Message- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Merle Norman Cosmetics. [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication [OT]
Drug addict, adulterer, experimented with homosexual sex, yeah, let's listen to what he has to say. --- Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:37, Chet Gardiner > wrote: > > Hi Chet! > > Lennon was a bit of a hypocrite, I think. His money > made life a snap for him, > left him with the liesure to criticize those of us > who don't have enough for > our "greed or hunger". > > He knows the truth now. > > Regards, > > Pete > > > Imagine - John Lennon > > > > Imagine there's no Heaven > > It's easy if you try > > No hell below us > > Above us only sky > > Imagine all the people > > Living for today > > > > Imagine there's no countries > > It isn't hard to do > > Nothing to kill or die for > > And no religion too > > Imagine all the people > > Living life in peace > > > > You may say that I'm a dreamer > > But I'm not the only one > > I hope someday you'll join us > > And the world will be as one > > > > Imagine no possessions > > I wonder if you can > > No need for greed or hunger > > A brotherhood of man > > Imagine all the people > > Sharing all the world > > > > You may say that I'm a dreamer > > But I'm not the only one > > I hope someday you'll join us > > And the world will live as one > > > > > > John Lennon has rejoined the one-ness that is the > only "reward". > > > > > > This has officially slipped [OT] > > > > Pete Theisen wrote: > > >On Tuesday 10 October 2006 02:33, Chet Gardiner > wrote: > > >>"If you have no religion at all then data > security and integrity are the > > >>least of your worries." > > >> > > >>??? > > > > > >Hi Chet! > > > > > >If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Pete > > > > > => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > => > How do you protect yourself when > everything is in one place? > > => > > > => 3 Hail Mary's ? > > > > Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL > MARYS. > > > > But what if you're not Christian? What > then?Hi Hal! > > >>> > > >>>Say whatever prayer that your religion says. > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication [OT]
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:37, Chet Gardiner wrote: Hi Chet! Lennon was a bit of a hypocrite, I think. His money made life a snap for him, left him with the liesure to criticize those of us who don't have enough for our "greed or hunger". He knows the truth now. Regards, Pete > Imagine - John Lennon > > Imagine there's no Heaven > It's easy if you try > No hell below us > Above us only sky > Imagine all the people > Living for today > > Imagine there's no countries > It isn't hard to do > Nothing to kill or die for > And no religion too > Imagine all the people > Living life in peace > > You may say that I'm a dreamer > But I'm not the only one > I hope someday you'll join us > And the world will be as one > > Imagine no possessions > I wonder if you can > No need for greed or hunger > A brotherhood of man > Imagine all the people > Sharing all the world > > You may say that I'm a dreamer > But I'm not the only one > I hope someday you'll join us > And the world will live as one > > > John Lennon has rejoined the one-ness that is the only "reward". > > > This has officially slipped [OT] > > Pete Theisen wrote: > >On Tuesday 10 October 2006 02:33, Chet Gardiner wrote: > >>"If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the > >>least of your worries." > >> > >>??? > > > >Hi Chet! > > > >If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. > > > >Regards, > > > >Pete > > > => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? > => > > => 3 Hail Mary's ? > > Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. > > But what if you're not Christian? What then?Hi Hal! > >>> > >>>Say whatever prayer that your religion says. > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Dawn Tierno-Culda <> wrote: > Stephen, > > Currently, it is manual. I will look into the cluster though. Can > you explain a little about the cluster? Give me a call, it's a lot of tying and I have already pressed those keys for this thread earlier. ;-> Basically Cluster is Free from M$, as long as you have paid for the Server, OS, and SQL license for it. There are other packages out there that will "fake" the cluster through your network. They are expensive to pay for on top of the above fees. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Stephen, Currently, it is manual. I will look into the cluster though. Can you explain a little about the cluster? Thanks for the information. >Dawn Tierno-Culda <> wrote: > Jim, > > I used DATACLAS for our applications talking to SQL. It has a table > that says what server you should talk to. When one goes down, I > update the table to talk to the other server. All users were up and > running in 5 minutes when one of the servers went down. >Stephen Wrote. >Is this automatic in a time out situation, or is it a manual adjustment? >If you had a cluster it would do it on the fly for you. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Merle Norman Cosmetics. ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Dawn Tierno-Culda <> wrote: > Jim, > > I used DATACLAS for our applications talking to SQL. It has a table > that says what server you should talk to. When one goes down, I > update the table to talk to the other server. All users were up and > running in 5 minutes when one of the servers went down. Is this automatic in a time out situation, or is it a manual adjustment? If you had a cluster it would do it on the fly for you. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim, I used DATACLAS for our applications talking to SQL. It has a table that says what server you should talk to. When one goes down, I update the table to talk to the other server. All users were up and running in 5 minutes when one of the servers went down. A word of warning though, if the server that is hosting the replication goes down, you will need to rebuild it. Though, I can say I rebuild the replication once a year because it leaves stuff and the database grows. I keep saying I am going to do more research on this go get some sprocs to clean it up better, but never seem to find the time. We have been using replication for years. I think it is a wonderful tool. Dawn >Jim Felton <> wrote: > Dawn, we are looking at SQL 2000 replication right now. Can it be > setup to do an automatic roll over to the backup server if the main > server fails? -Original Message- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Merle Norman Cosmetics. ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Imagine - John Lennon Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one John Lennon has rejoined the one-ness that is the only "reward". This has officially slipped [OT] Pete Theisen wrote: On Tuesday 10 October 2006 02:33, Chet Gardiner wrote: "If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the least of your worries." ??? Hi Chet! If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. Regards, Pete => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? => > => 3 Hail Mary's ? Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. But what if you're not Christian? What then?Hi Hal! Say whatever prayer that your religion says. [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 02:33, Chet Gardiner wrote: > "If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the > least of your worries." > > ??? Hi Chet! If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. Regards, Pete > >>=> On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>=> > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? > >>=> > > >>=> 3 Hail Mary's ? > >> > >>Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. > >> > >>But what if you're not Christian? What then?Hi Hal! > > > >Say whatever prayer that your religion says. ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
"If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the least of your worries." ??? Pete Theisen wrote: On Monday 09 October 2006 11:38, Hal Kaplan wrote: => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? => > => 3 Hail Mary's ? => => A+ => jml => Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. But what if you're not Christian? What then? Hi Hal! Say whatever prayer that your religion says. If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the least of your worries. Regards, Pete [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On Monday 09 October 2006 11:38, Hal Kaplan wrote: > => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? > => > > => 3 Hail Mary's ? > => > => A+ > => jml > => > > Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. > > But what if you're not Christian? What then? Hi Hal! Say whatever prayer that your religion says. If you have no religion at all then data security and integrity are the least of your worries. Regards, Pete ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim Felton <> wrote: > Dawn, we are looking at SQL 2000 replication right now. Can it be > setup to do an automatic roll over to the backup server if the main > server fails? > > TIA, > Jim > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > Of Dawn Tierno-Culda > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:33 PM > To: profox@leafe.com > Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication > > Why not use SQL 2000's replication feature. > > -Original Message- > From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication > > The two servers are on different power and UPS sources and have > RS-422 interconnects to the Dual device servers that are very tightly > tied together. While splitting the two systems into separate > racks/rooms is possible, it's not practical. > > Thanks, > Jim > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > Of Hal Kaplan > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:38 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication > > => -Original Message- > => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: > Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: > RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => > > All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system > mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can > do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA No. You have to buy into a third party to accomplish that. You will find it is NOT CHEAP, buy any CYA that works is going to be expensive. For a pair of servers figure 10,000 + USD. That is for the full blown switch over with no loss of data and not human interaction with your network so your code asking for data still works. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Dawn, we are looking at SQL 2000 replication right now. Can it be setup to do an automatic roll over to the backup server if the main server fails? TIA, Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Tierno-Culda Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:33 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject:RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication Why not use SQL 2000's replication feature. -Original Message- From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication The two servers are on different power and UPS sources and have RS-422 interconnects to the Dual device servers that are very tightly tied together. While splitting the two systems into separate racks/rooms is possible, it's not practical. Thanks, Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Kaplan Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:38 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA HALinNY [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know about the Brussels site. It is quite a sight and quite a site. I heard that the secret location is where The Green Giant hangs out while he invents new vegetables. His friend, The Little Green Sprout, maintains an office in Brussels, where he is affectionately known as ... (I can't do it ... it's too stupid) ... The Little Green BRUSSELS Sprout. You really should stop smoking that stuff, Hal A+ jml ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
=> -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Laeremans => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:24 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => I honestly don't know..Security is really tight. F.e. the => 2nd location is kept secret. All servers are DB2 afaik. By => it's very nature a lot of the data has to be static. So => maybe they do a daily diff. => Been once inside The Brussels setup and it was quite an => impressive sight. => => A+ => jml I know about the Brussels site. It is quite a sight and quite a site. I heard that the secret location is where The Green Giant hangs out while he invents new vegetables. His friend, The Little Green Sprout, maintains an office in Brussels, where he is affectionately known as ... (I can't do it ... it's too stupid) ... The Little Green BRUSSELS Sprout. Bad HALinNY ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Why not use SQL 2000's replication feature. -Original Message- From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication The two servers are on different power and UPS sources and have RS-422 interconnects to the Dual device servers that are very tightly tied together. While splitting the two systems into separate racks/rooms is possible, it's not practical. Thanks, Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Kaplan Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:38 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA HALinNY [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Fair enough, Jim. Thanks for the explanation. HALinNY => -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:20 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => Hal, About 80% of the information on the servers is replaced => in a matter of => 14 days. If we loose the control at the TV station we are => off air for many reasons beyond these servers. Our need for => redundancy is to keep programming in the loop. If we had => say a fire in the room, it would require many millions of => dollars of equipment and months to rebuild. In the down => time we would farm out the work and carry everything of fiber. => => Thanks, => Jim ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On 10/9/06, Stephen the Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wonder how much time it takes to restore a multi TB database. I know that 25 gig on an average server only takes 15 to 30 min to bring back on line. Let alone how do you get it from one box to another. That must take hours to move within gigabit switch. Stephen, I honestly don't know..Security is really tight. F.e. the 2nd location is kept secret. All servers are DB2 afaik. By it's very nature a lot of the data has to be static. So maybe they do a daily diff. Been once inside The Brussels setup and it was quite an impressive sight. A+ jml ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Hal, About 80% of the information on the servers is replaced in a matter of 14 days. If we loose the control at the TV station we are off air for many reasons beyond these servers. Our need for redundancy is to keep programming in the loop. If we had say a fire in the room, it would require many millions of dollars of equipment and months to rebuild. In the down time we would farm out the work and carry everything of fiber. Thanks, Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Kaplan Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:34 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject:RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen the Cook => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:48 => To: 'ProFox Email List' => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => => Now Q about having both primary and backup on the same rack? => I know that in my last gig I had that set up and did a => logshipping through a crappy VPN back to my business office. => Distance was only 10 miles, but bulk transactions failed in => the every 15 min push because data size didn't fully copy => over. So watch out on those little aspects of covering your assets. => => Stephen Russell Uh, thanks for the Availability 101 course. It was a good refresher since I haven't been involved with that level of availability since 1981 when I was involved in clustering Univac mainframes. Back to "all your eggs in one basket:" I still don't get the point or sagacity of putting the primary and backup in the same rack, let alone the same location. Any type of catastrophe is going to wipe everything out. Depending on site specifics, even some things that are less than catastrophic can result in total loss. How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? HALinNY [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
The two servers are on different power and UPS sources and have RS-422 interconnects to the Dual device servers that are very tightly tied together. While splitting the two systems into separate racks/rooms is possible, it's not practical. Thanks, Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Kaplan Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:38 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject:RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA HALinNY [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jean Laeremans <> wrote: > On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> But what if you're not Christian? What then? > > Ask some colleague ? > Or do like we do...2 different locations - heavily secured, daily > backup kept in yet another place..and TB databases.. I wonder how much time it takes to restore a multi TB database. I know that 25 gig on an average server only takes 15 to 30 min to bring back on line. Let alone how do you get it from one box to another. That must take hours to move within gigabit switch. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Hal Kaplan <> wrote: > => -Original Message- > => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen the Cook > => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:48 => To: 'ProFox Email List' > => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => => Now Q about > having both primary and backup on the same rack? => I know that in > my last gig I had that set up and did a => logshipping through a > crappy VPN back to my business office. => Distance was only 10 > miles, but bulk transactions failed in => the every 15 min push > because data size didn't fully copy => over. So watch out on those > little aspects of covering your assets. => => Stephen Russell > > Uh, thanks for the Availability 101 course. It was a good refresher > since I haven't been involved with that level of availability since > 1981 when I was involved in clustering Univac mainframes. > > Back to "all your eggs in one basket:" I still don't get the point > or sagacity of putting the primary and backup in the same rack, let > alone the same location. Any type of catastrophe is going to wipe > everything out. Depending on site specifics, even some things that > are less than catastrophic can result in total loss. How do you > protect yourself when everything is in one place? Well you still do the logshipping to another location to receive the transaction logs. You also have to take the nightly diff backups to a separate storage and the full as often as needed. In all my years of SQL admin I have found that when SQL server goes stupid, it's trying to use virtual ram for it's processes. Darn, you have to reboot the box. Happens every 90 days or so. When your clustered, you down the primary box and the cluster promotes the passive to active. Your data is intact and you didn't have to go through a restore process to bring it up to date, or to reset lots of potential connections to use the new data source. Using RAID 5 I have replace quite a few drives in the raid appliance, and in 95% of the time I was up without any problems. Only once did the local staff place the backup, diff, and tran files on the same RAID that was also C:\. You can point out the problems but sometimes they don't pay any attention, till it's to late. So 19 good and one bad in just about 10 years of SQL server data. Now some points on clustering that are missed. Every instance of SQL Server in the cluster runs as a SERVICE on the server. So if you have production as well as staging INSTANCES on the same cluster, you can take down the staging cluster if you see one environment taking resources that the other needs. In the past you had to kill the server, but clustering allows you to tackle the instance properly. I'll say that this point is missed on many people who work in a clustered environment and they over react in an emergency. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But what if you're not Christian? What then? Ask some colleague ? Or do like we do...2 different locations - heavily secured, daily backup kept in yet another place..and TB databases.. A+ jml ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
You pray to the god of your choice - me, I go for Bacchus! John Weller Wessex Computer Solutions 01380 728880 07976 393631 > => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? > => > > => 3 Hail Mary's ? > => > => A+ > => jml > => > > Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. > > But what if you're not Christian? What then? > > HALinNY > > ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
=> -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Laeremans => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:34 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: => > How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? => > => 3 Hail Mary's ? => => A+ => jml => Sheesh, we went through this last week. HAIL MARYS. But what if you're not Christian? What then? HALinNY ___ 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.
Re: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
On 10/9/06, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? 3 Hail Mary's ? A+ jml ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
=> -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen the Cook => Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:48 => To: 'ProFox Email List' => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => => Now Q about having both primary and backup on the same rack? => I know that in my last gig I had that set up and did a => logshipping through a crappy VPN back to my business office. => Distance was only 10 miles, but bulk transactions failed in => the every 15 min push because data size didn't fully copy => over. So watch out on those little aspects of covering your assets. => => Stephen Russell Uh, thanks for the Availability 101 course. It was a good refresher since I haven't been involved with that level of availability since 1981 when I was involved in clustering Univac mainframes. Back to "all your eggs in one basket:" I still don't get the point or sagacity of putting the primary and backup in the same rack, let alone the same location. Any type of catastrophe is going to wipe everything out. Depending on site specifics, even some things that are less than catastrophic can result in total loss. How do you protect yourself when everything is in one place? HALinNY ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Hal Kaplan <> wrote: > => -Original Message- > => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: > Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: > RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => > > All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system > mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can > do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA There are two methods of creating a seamless uptime for your data. You can create a cluster where multiple SQL engines are waiting for the cluster to tell them who is running. Those SQL servers are both pointing to the same database on a SHARED data device on your network. You can also turn on replication and have the SQL server dispatch data to a different server anywhere in your organization. Replication demands some switch between the servers when one goes down and the other picks up. You also have to determine how up to date your going to make these separated systems. Do you use snapshot, merge or transactional methods for "replication" ;-> They each have their own + - lists. There are quite a few vendors who are in this space to automate this whole mess. Price tags are large, and maintenance fees for them are almost as profound. You will be paying on the # of servers, # CPUs, that are part of your environment. Clustering does that for you with no loss of data, you do loose uncommitted data when the switch takes place. Clustering is free from M$, well as free as that second server, OS, SQL license get. But you do have to pay that same price for EVERY method your going to look at. Now Q about having both primary and backup on the same rack? I know that in my last gig I had that set up and did a logshipping through a crappy VPN back to my business office. Distance was only 10 miles, but bulk transactions failed in the every 15 min push because data size didn't fully copy over. So watch out on those little aspects of covering your assets. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
=> -Original Message- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Felton => Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 08:54 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication => => 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. => All right, what am I missing here. IMHO, for such a critical system mounting both in the same rack is one of the dumbest things you can do. Am I wrong? Please explain. TIA HALinNY ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Thanks to all of you, I'll look at all the possibilities. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen the Cook Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 6:40 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication Jim Felton <> wrote: > Good Idea, but I am hoping for a software only solution. I looked at Neverfail. 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 [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim Felton <> wrote: > Good Idea, but I am hoping for a software only solution. I looked at Neverfail. 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Good Idea, but I am hoping for a software only solution. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 9:09 AM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication > 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. Bill [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
> 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. Bill ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim, http://www.doubletake.com/ Dave Crozier ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
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. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen the Cook Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:46 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication Jim Felton <> wrote: > I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two MS SQL > 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is > online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date > in a real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back > to Backup server with all the current information in the database. > Does anyone have a similar environment and how did you solve the > problem? How far apart are the servers? How is the data stored on the primary server? I have done a Cluster, where 2 servers will do the work of one. One is your primary and the second is a backup. Data must be on a SHARED drive (SAN, or similar type of data storage device). You will have to make a named instance of SQL instead of just the SeverName. Say that your server is thrashing in a blown away query. You can down that server and the other will pop up to handle all requests. When you bring it back up it's running at full bore. It's an every 90 days issue I have found. 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: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/6/2006 [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Dave, Sounds like what we need, I going to have look at the product. Do you
have a web address for them?
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Dave Crozier
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:20 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim,
We have exactly the same system at work and we looked around for 18 months
trying ALL the possibilities and the one which came out top and we installed
was Doubletake. I looked at about 10 products for evaluation and none of
them even came close.
Our requirement was to be able to literally pull the plug on the main server
and have the backup server take over control within 5 seconds. As a matter
of course we do this every month to make sure the system performs OK. The
secondary backup server immediately assumes an additional IP address which
was held by the Primary (now dead) server and continues the live system.
There is inbuilt additional support for SQL server which we also use.
Most of the systems out there will cater for SQL server but only in as much
as providing basic replication which is available as standard in SQL as it
is. We run lots of VFP DBC/DBF files and none of the other systems could
cater for the system dying whilst DBF's were open. The worse case scenario
we have had was to have to do a reindex which we do as a matter of course
once a month anyway.
In addition Doubletake can do times snapshots to disk/tape and we have a
tertiary server doing this from the secondary server every 30 minutes.
Don't just take what manufacturers say for granted. Ask to see a LIVE
demonstration with your files. That usually sorts out the men from the boys!
Doubletake isn't exactly cheap but for a 24/7 system its unbeatable in my
experience.
Dave Crozier
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jim Felton
Sent: 07 October 2006 21:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Com
Subject: FW: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
-Original Message-
From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:31 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject:[NF] - SQL- Database Replication
I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two
MS SQL 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is
online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date in a
real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back to Backup
server with all the current information in the database. Does anyone have a
similar environment and how did you solve the problem?
TIA
Jim
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
application/ms-tnef
---
[excessive quoting removed by server]
___
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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
I use Replication to do this. It keeps data real time. I have 3 servers. One in Memphis and two in LA. -Original Message- From: Stephen the Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication Jim Felton <> wrote: > I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two MS SQL > 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is > online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date > in a real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back > to Backup server with all the current information in the database. > Does anyone have a similar environment and how did you solve the > problem? How far apart are the servers? How is the data stored on the primary server? I have done a Cluster, where 2 servers will do the work of one. One is your primary and the second is a backup. Data must be on a SHARED drive (SAN, or similar type of data storage device). You will have to make a named instance of SQL instead of just the SeverName. Say that your server is thrashing in a blown away query. You can down that server and the other will pop up to handle all requests. When you bring it back up it's running at full bore. It's an every 90 days issue I have found. 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: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/6/2006 [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim Felton <> wrote: > I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two MS SQL > 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is > online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date > in a real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back > to Backup server with all the current information in the database. > Does anyone have a similar environment and how did you solve the > problem? How far apart are the servers? How is the data stored on the primary server? I have done a Cluster, where 2 servers will do the work of one. One is your primary and the second is a backup. Data must be on a SHARED drive (SAN, or similar type of data storage device). You will have to make a named instance of SQL instead of just the SeverName. Say that your server is thrashing in a blown away query. You can down that server and the other will pop up to handle all requests. When you bring it back up it's running at full bore. It's an every 90 days issue I have found. 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: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/6/2006 ___ 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.
RE: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
Jim,
We have exactly the same system at work and we looked around for 18 months
trying ALL the possibilities and the one which came out top and we installed
was Doubletake. I looked at about 10 products for evaluation and none of
them even came close.
Our requirement was to be able to literally pull the plug on the main server
and have the backup server take over control within 5 seconds. As a matter
of course we do this every month to make sure the system performs OK. The
secondary backup server immediately assumes an additional IP address which
was held by the Primary (now dead) server and continues the live system.
There is inbuilt additional support for SQL server which we also use.
Most of the systems out there will cater for SQL server but only in as much
as providing basic replication which is available as standard in SQL as it
is. We run lots of VFP DBC/DBF files and none of the other systems could
cater for the system dying whilst DBF's were open. The worse case scenario
we have had was to have to do a reindex which we do as a matter of course
once a month anyway.
In addition Doubletake can do times snapshots to disk/tape and we have a
tertiary server doing this from the secondary server every 30 minutes.
Don't just take what manufacturers say for granted. Ask to see a LIVE
demonstration with your files. That usually sorts out the men from the boys!
Doubletake isn't exactly cheap but for a 24/7 system its unbeatable in my
experience.
Dave Crozier
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jim Felton
Sent: 07 October 2006 21:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Com
Subject: FW: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
-Original Message-
From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:31 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two
MS SQL 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is
online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date in a
real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back to Backup
server with all the current information in the database. Does anyone have a
similar environment and how did you solve the problem?
TIA
Jim
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
application/ms-tnef
---
[excessive quoting removed by server]
___
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.
FW: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication
-Original Message- From: Jim Felton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:31 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: [NF] - SQL- Database Replication I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two MS SQL 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date in a real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back to Backup server with all the current information in the database. Does anyone have a similar environment and how did you solve the problem? TIA Jim --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- ___ 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.
[NF] - SQL- Database Replication
I'm hoping one of you SQL gurus can help me out. I have two MS SQL 2000 Servers which are used as a Main and Backup server. The Main is online 24X7. What I need to do is keep the Backup server up to date in a real time. So if I have a Main server failure I can fall back to Backup server with all the current information in the database. Does anyone have a similar environment and how did you solve the problem? TIA Jim --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- ___ 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.
