Log Shipping or Replication

Which would you recommend to setup as a failover database server? (We do not
have the ability right now to setup a sql cluster). What is the difference
between log shipping and database replication? Pros/Cons? Thanks.
- GabeIt depends on a lot of things. You can get started with the
high availability options discussed in this chapter in the
Resource Kit:
Chapter 15 - High Availability Options
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...com/?id=822400
-Sue
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:46:34 -0500, "Gabe Matteson"
<gmatteson@.inquery.biz.nospam> wrote:

>Which would you recommend to setup as a failover database server? (We do no
t
>have the ability right now to setup a sql cluster). What is the difference
>between log shipping and database replication? Pros/Cons? Thanks.
>- Gabe
>|||"Gabe Matteson" <gmatteson@.inquery.biz.nospam> wrote in
news:OIonzPm3FHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

> Which would you recommend to setup as a failover database server? (We
> do not have the ability right now to setup a sql cluster). What is the
> difference between log shipping and database replication? Pros/Cons?
Neither log shipping nor replication supports automatic failover. If
failover is a concert to you, and you cannot implement a cluster, I would
strongly suggest that you have a look on the database mirroring feature of
SQL Server 2005.
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging|||Gabe,
this article will hopefully also help:
http://www.replicationanswers.com/Standby.asp
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)|||Gabe,
All the answers you have recieved are good ones. Let me see if I can add
some added information.
Replication for a fail over option can work. I personally would not
recommend it unless your database is designed for Merge Replication. Merge
replication would give you the ability to start writing to another server as
soon as the failover conncetion is made.
Log Shipping has a time delay on the time the data is moved from the
production server to the standby server. This is going to depend on your
t-log backup schedule.
IMHO I would consider looking at less expensive failover options. I use
both Active/Active and Active/Passive. I perfer A/A becuase the second piec
e
of hardware is not sitting there doing nothing when the primary node is up.
The other option that I think you need to look at no matter what soultion yo
u
choose is does the application understand the database failover. If a
conncetion is broken do you have to re-connect manually, or will the app loo
k
for the second server after a certian amount of time without a responce. If
you are at a company where they mention that they can not afford to be down
or they are losing money. Then I would let them know that they really can't
afford to be without a cluster. I know that CDW sells them in a package for
pretty cheap. I have a contact that if you would like send me a note and I
am sure she could get you a good quote.
If you would like more infomation about the 3 options please let us know. I
am sure that you will get a ton of answers.
--Chris
If you wou
"Gabe Matteson" wrote:

> Which would you recommend to setup as a failover database server? (We do n
ot
> have the ability right now to setup a sql cluster). What is the difference
> between log shipping and database replication? Pros/Cons? Thanks.
> - Gabe
>
>|||Thanks, I appreciate all the replies!
"Chris Shaw" <Chris_Shaw@.SQLPASS.org> wrote in message
news:82847E0A-0820-40A4-B07F-130200E5E231@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Gabe,
> All the answers you have recieved are good ones. Let me see if I can add
> some added information.
> Replication for a fail over option can work. I personally would not
> recommend it unless your database is designed for Merge Replication.
> Merge
> replication would give you the ability to start writing to another server
> as
> soon as the failover conncetion is made.
> Log Shipping has a time delay on the time the data is moved from the
> production server to the standby server. This is going to depend on your
> t-log backup schedule.
> IMHO I would consider looking at less expensive failover options. I use
> both Active/Active and Active/Passive. I perfer A/A becuase the second
> piece
> of hardware is not sitting there doing nothing when the primary node is
> up.
> The other option that I think you need to look at no matter what soultion
> you
> choose is does the application understand the database failover. If a
> conncetion is broken do you have to re-connect manually, or will the app
> look
> for the second server after a certian amount of time without a responce.
> If
> you are at a company where they mention that they can not afford to be
> down
> or they are losing money. Then I would let them know that they really
> can't
> afford to be without a cluster. I know that CDW sells them in a package
> for
> pretty cheap. I have a contact that if you would like send me a note and
> I
> am sure she could get you a good quote.
> If you would like more infomation about the 3 options please let us know.
> I
> am sure that you will get a ton of answers.
> --Chris
> If you wou
> "Gabe Matteson" wrote:
>