Need suggestion for SQL 2000

Hi,
I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in details
doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
any suggestions would appreciateIf your system is read / write there really is no easy way to load balance
SQL Server. Load balancing, HA and DR are different things and you need to
be clear on what it is you want or need to do.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2B38DF31-D847-4193-A761-2125AFD7AE6D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
> can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in details
> doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
> I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
> any suggestions would appreciate
>|||HI,
My application reads/ writes to my sql server. Actaully, i am looking for
a plan where in future to create a disaster recovery plan. as of now I can't
keep my sql server down and I would like to create plan where I can create 2
server, load sql 2000..and if one fails, other will function.
I am looking for a suggestion what would be better solution if I should use
SQL locad balance, cluster, or mirror my harddrive..
since the application will update my db, so i need to have both sql server
data shoud be same.. can someone suggests me if there is a article I can find
in doing this...
would appreciate someone help..
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> If your system is read / write there really is no easy way to load balance
> SQL Server. Load balancing, HA and DR are different things and you need to
> be clear on what it is you want or need to do.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2B38DF31-D847-4193-A761-2125AFD7AE6D@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
> > can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in details
> > doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
> >
> > I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
> > any suggestions would appreciate
> >
> >
>
>|||That is usually what a CLUSTER is for. It is a hardware failover solution
in the event one server fails the shared db is moved over to the other
server and can be up and running in les than a few minutes. Another
solution is to use Log Shipping. All are outlined here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/availability.mspx
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA498550-7F88-4E80-9800-CC0BEA00914E@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> My application reads/ writes to my sql server. Actaully, i am looking for
> a plan where in future to create a disaster recovery plan. as of now I
> can't
> keep my sql server down and I would like to create plan where I can create
> 2
> server, load sql 2000..and if one fails, other will function.
> I am looking for a suggestion what would be better solution if I should
> use
> SQL locad balance, cluster, or mirror my harddrive..
> since the application will update my db, so i need to have both sql server
> data shoud be same.. can someone suggests me if there is a article I can
> find
> in doing this...
> would appreciate someone help..
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> If your system is read / write there really is no easy way to load
>> balance
>> SQL Server. Load balancing, HA and DR are different things and you need
>> to
>> be clear on what it is you want or need to do.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2B38DF31-D847-4193-A761-2125AFD7AE6D@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
>> > can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in
>> > details
>> > doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
>> >
>> > I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
>> > any suggestions would appreciate
>> >
>> >
>>|||Thanks Andrew,
I am researching on clustering the sql server. I will be using Vmware
product to test the cluster enviornment. I have one more questions, The
clustering the sql server stays stable in enviornment. does it have any pros
or cons by doin in cluster enviornment
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> That is usually what a CLUSTER is for. It is a hardware failover solution
> in the event one server fails the shared db is moved over to the other
> server and can be up and running in les than a few minutes. Another
> solution is to use Log Shipping. All are outlined here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/availability.mspx
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AA498550-7F88-4E80-9800-CC0BEA00914E@.microsoft.com...
> > HI,
> > My application reads/ writes to my sql server. Actaully, i am looking for
> > a plan where in future to create a disaster recovery plan. as of now I
> > can't
> > keep my sql server down and I would like to create plan where I can create
> > 2
> > server, load sql 2000..and if one fails, other will function.
> > I am looking for a suggestion what would be better solution if I should
> > use
> > SQL locad balance, cluster, or mirror my harddrive..
> > since the application will update my db, so i need to have both sql server
> > data shoud be same.. can someone suggests me if there is a article I can
> > find
> > in doing this...
> > would appreciate someone help..
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> If your system is read / write there really is no easy way to load
> >> balance
> >> SQL Server. Load balancing, HA and DR are different things and you need
> >> to
> >> be clear on what it is you want or need to do.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2B38DF31-D847-4193-A761-2125AFD7AE6D@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
> >> > can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in
> >> > details
> >> > doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
> >> >
> >> > I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
> >> > any suggestions would appreciate
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||If you are asking if testing in VMWARE is a good test for the real thing I
can't say. But I would not want to base my decision on such a test. One of
the most important things in considering a cluster is to make sure all your
hardware, OS etc. is on the Hardware Compatibility List for Clustering
(HCLC). If not then you are at risk of the cluster not working properly.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:138B7723-52D9-487B-BBD3-FCBC54407F1C@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Andrew,
> I am researching on clustering the sql server. I will be using Vmware
> product to test the cluster enviornment. I have one more questions, The
> clustering the sql server stays stable in enviornment. does it have any
> pros
> or cons by doin in cluster enviornment
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> That is usually what a CLUSTER is for. It is a hardware failover
>> solution
>> in the event one server fails the shared db is moved over to the other
>> server and can be up and running in les than a few minutes. Another
>> solution is to use Log Shipping. All are outlined here:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/availability.mspx
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AA498550-7F88-4E80-9800-CC0BEA00914E@.microsoft.com...
>> > HI,
>> > My application reads/ writes to my sql server. Actaully, i am looking
>> > for
>> > a plan where in future to create a disaster recovery plan. as of now I
>> > can't
>> > keep my sql server down and I would like to create plan where I can
>> > create
>> > 2
>> > server, load sql 2000..and if one fails, other will function.
>> > I am looking for a suggestion what would be better solution if I should
>> > use
>> > SQL locad balance, cluster, or mirror my harddrive..
>> > since the application will update my db, so i need to have both sql
>> > server
>> > data shoud be same.. can someone suggests me if there is a article I
>> > can
>> > find
>> > in doing this...
>> > would appreciate someone help..
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> If your system is read / write there really is no easy way to load
>> >> balance
>> >> SQL Server. Load balancing, HA and DR are different things and you
>> >> need
>> >> to
>> >> be clear on what it is you want or need to do.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Pooja" <Pooja@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:2B38DF31-D847-4193-A761-2125AFD7AE6D@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am researching about best practice for SQL load balance.
>> >> > can someone suggest if there's article out there would expalin in
>> >> > details
>> >> > doing the SQL 2000 load balcance.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am planning the future failover so it does not impact users
>> >> > any suggestions would appreciate
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>