Log Shipping with clustered database.

Hi,
We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
Log shipping.
But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The only
problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment.
MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
"Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
them"
"csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
> Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
> Log shipping.
> But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
> and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>
|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
Can you please provide me some document or any link for the same.
What are the necessary steps which should i take to do this task.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
bass_player wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The only
> problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
> your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment.
> --
> MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
> "Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
> them"
>
> "csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:

Log Shipping with clustered database.

Hi,
We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
Log shipping.
But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The only
problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment.
--
MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
"Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
them"
"csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
> Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
> Log shipping.
> But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
> and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
Can you please provide me some document or any link for the same.
What are the necessary steps which should i take to do this task.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
bass_player wrote:
> Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The only
> problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
> your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment.
> --
> MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
> "Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
> them"
>
> "csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
> >
> > Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
> > Log shipping.
> >
> > But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
> > and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Sajid C.
> >
> >

Log Shipping with clustered database.

Hi,
We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
Log shipping.
But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The onl
y
problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment.
--
MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
"Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
them"
"csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> We are running SQL Server Failover cluster in Active/Passive mode.
> Now, we want to setup DR server for this clustered database using
> Log shipping.
> But my concern is, can we do log shipping with clustered database ?
> and the answer of this question is Yes then Please let me know How ?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
Can you please provide me some document or any link for the same.
What are the necessary steps which should i take to do this task.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
bass_player wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep...you can. Just like how you do it in a non-clustered instance. The o
nly
> problem you will have in here is if you want to be notified thru email if
> your restore jobs fail as MAPI is not supported in a clustered environment
.
> --
> MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
> "Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
> them"
>
> "csajid@.gmail.com" wrote:
>

log shipping with cluster

is there any link about logshipping with windows 2000 cluster ?

Have you encountered a problem? These two technologies are independent of each other and shouldn't have problems when used together.|||

Hi Matt,

case closed, thank you for you response.

t tried to configure the log shipping from the passive node, not the owner, thats why it failed. thx.

sql

log shipping with cluster

is there any link about logshipping with windows 2000 cluster ?

Have you encountered a problem? These two technologies are independent of each other and shouldn't have problems when used together.|||

Hi Matt,

case closed, thank you for you response.

t tried to configure the log shipping from the passive node, not the owner, thats why it failed. thx.

Log shipping to DR env

The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but is
isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping - or
some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every 24
hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same sceario
but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting between
the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as stand-alone
clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines be
part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
Thanks
Thanks for the reply and information.
"Greg Linwood" wrote:

> Just realised I should've pointed out that "out of the box" Log Shipping
> does require domain permissions, but you need to use the standard version
> really as it doesn't offer much extra functionality than a few scripts can
> achieve as it essentially just builds SQLAgent jobs in the background which
> you can easily script yourself..
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> Benchmark your query performance
> http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uhLQ8D01HHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>

Log shipping to DR env

The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but is
isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping - or
some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every 24
hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same sceario
but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting between
the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as stand-alone
clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines be
part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
ThanksYour DBA is wrong - Log Shipping has nothing to do with domains. As long as
you can automate the scripting involved to backup the TLog on the production
server, copy / ftp it to the DR server & restore it (with no recovery) on
the DR server, you will have the foundations of Log Shipping in place.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3EDE4AB5-9793-43A5-B056-1C11D3436A9D@.microsoft.com...
> The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
> remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but is
> isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping - or
> some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every
> 24
> hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same
> sceario
> but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting
> between
> the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
> shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
> My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as stand-alone
> clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines be
> part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
> Thanks|||Just realised I should've pointed out that "out of the box" Log Shipping
does require domain permissions, but you need to use the standard version
really as it doesn't offer much extra functionality than a few scripts can
achieve as it essentially just builds SQLAgent jobs in the background which
you can easily script yourself..
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhLQ8D01HHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Your DBA is wrong - Log Shipping has nothing to do with domains. As long
> as you can automate the scripting involved to backup the TLog on the
> production server, copy / ftp it to the DR server & restore it (with no
> recovery) on the DR server, you will have the foundations of Log Shipping
> in place.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> Benchmark your query performance
> http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> "pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3EDE4AB5-9793-43A5-B056-1C11D3436A9D@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks for the reply and information.
"Greg Linwood" wrote:

> Just realised I should've pointed out that "out of the box" Log Shipping
> does require domain permissions, but you need to use the standard version
> really as it doesn't offer much extra functionality than a few scripts can
> achieve as it essentially just builds SQLAgent jobs in the background whic
h
> you can easily script yourself..
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> Benchmark your query performance
> http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uhLQ8D01HHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>

Log shipping to DR env

The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but is
isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping - or
some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every 24
hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same sceario
but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting between
the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as stand-alone
clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines be
part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
ThanksYour DBA is wrong - Log Shipping has nothing to do with domains. As long as
you can automate the scripting involved to backup the TLog on the production
server, copy / ftp it to the DR server & restore it (with no recovery) on
the DR server, you will have the foundations of Log Shipping in place.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3EDE4AB5-9793-43A5-B056-1C11D3436A9D@.microsoft.com...
> The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
> remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but is
> isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping - or
> some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every
> 24
> hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same
> sceario
> but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting
> between
> the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
> shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
> My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as stand-alone
> clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines be
> part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
> Thanks|||Just realised I should've pointed out that "out of the box" Log Shipping
does require domain permissions, but you need to use the standard version
really as it doesn't offer much extra functionality than a few scripts can
achieve as it essentially just builds SQLAgent jobs in the background which
you can easily script yourself..
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhLQ8D01HHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Your DBA is wrong - Log Shipping has nothing to do with domains. As long
> as you can automate the scripting involved to backup the TLog on the
> production server, copy / ftp it to the DR server & restore it (with no
> recovery) on the DR server, you will have the foundations of Log Shipping
> in place.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> Benchmark your query performance
> http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> "pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3EDE4AB5-9793-43A5-B056-1C11D3436A9D@.microsoft.com...
>> The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
>> remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but
>> is
>> isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping -
>> or
>> some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every
>> 24
>> hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same
>> sceario
>> but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting
>> between
>> the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
>> shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
>> My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as
>> stand-alone
>> clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines
>> be
>> part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
>> Thanks
>|||Thanks for the reply and information.
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Just realised I should've pointed out that "out of the box" Log Shipping
> does require domain permissions, but you need to use the standard version
> really as it doesn't offer much extra functionality than a few scripts can
> achieve as it essentially just builds SQLAgent jobs in the background which
> you can easily script yourself..
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> Benchmark your query performance
> http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> "Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uhLQ8D01HHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Your DBA is wrong - Log Shipping has nothing to do with domains. As long
> > as you can automate the scripting involved to backup the TLog on the
> > production server, copy / ftp it to the DR server & restore it (with no
> > recovery) on the DR server, you will have the foundations of Log Shipping
> > in place.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Linwood
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
> > Benchmark your query performance
> > http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
> >
> > "pdx" <pdx@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EDE4AB5-9793-43A5-B056-1C11D3436A9D@.microsoft.com...
> >> The scenario is a production W2k3 domain running a SQL 2005 cluster and
> >> remotely located DR domain that is a clone of the production domain but
> >> is
> >> isolated from a network standpoint. Is there a way to do log shipping -
> >> or
> >> some other form of so that the DR dbs can be kept in fairly close (every
> >> 24
> >> hours) synch with the production dbs? This is being done in the same
> >> sceario
> >> but with SQL 2000 by opening of necessary firewall ports and natting
> >> between
> >> the machines and I want to know if its doable in 2005, my DBA claims log
> >> shipping machines must be part of the same domain in Sql 2005.
> >> My goal is to to keep the production domains and DR domains as
> >> stand-alone
> >> clones but keep sql in synch. The dba is proposing that the DR machines
> >> be
> >> part of the production domain in order to keep the dbs in synch.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> >
>
>

Log Shipping Question

I have successfully setup log shipping between my production SQL 2000 Server
(setup in a Cluster) and my Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server (across a WAN)
What is the best way if any to stop the log shipping for a extended period
of time and re-enable it without setting up the entire maintenance plan
again. Is this possible? What happened is I needed to shut down my
production server due to hurricane Wilma as a precaution. I disabled the log
shipping jobs on both servers but didn't actually physicall shut down the
Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server.
The servers got out of synch...although it said the logs were being shipped
and they were working correctly after I turned the production server back on.
However, the log were not being copied to the Disaster Recovery Server.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!
Hello mate,
The way I understand it is you could have just shut down your production
server without changing/stopping/disabling the log shipping jobs and just
bring it back online when your happy (the hurricane has passed!) and the
backup/copy and restores should resume as normal?
The shipping jobs seems very automated once started and syncronised - think
of it like a 'long reboot' of your production boxes. Your boxes aer fine
after bouncing them right - so whats the difference if they are down for a
few days?
I'm in the middle of documenting a similar setup with my production box (non
clustered) getting logs sent to the backup SQL box accross a WAN - the most
complex part of the exercise seems to be getting the backup DB up and running
post failure/disaster of the production box.
Hope this helps you mate.
Paul.
"foghorn69@.news.postalias" wrote:

> I have successfully setup log shipping between my production SQL 2000 Server
> (setup in a Cluster) and my Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server (across a WAN)
> What is the best way if any to stop the log shipping for a extended period
> of time and re-enable it without setting up the entire maintenance plan
> again. Is this possible? What happened is I needed to shut down my
> production server due to hurricane Wilma as a precaution. I disabled the log
> shipping jobs on both servers but didn't actually physicall shut down the
> Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server.
> The servers got out of synch...although it said the logs were being shipped
> and they were working correctly after I turned the production server back on.
> However, the log were not being copied to the Disaster Recovery Server.
> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!

Log Shipping Question

I have successfully setup log shipping between my production SQL 2000 Server
(setup in a Cluster) and my Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server (across a WAN)
What is the best way if any to stop the log shipping for a extended period
of time and re-enable it without setting up the entire maintenance plan
again. Is this possible? What happened is I needed to shut down my
production server due to hurricane Wilma as a precaution. I disabled the log
shipping jobs on both servers but didn't actually physicall shut down the
Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server.
The servers got out of synch...although it said the logs were being shipped
and they were working correctly after I turned the production server back on.
However, the log were not being copied to the Disaster Recovery Server.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!
Hello,
Based on my experience, you shall remove and recreate log shipping for this
situation becaseu the expected backup on the primary servers were not
properly created due to server shutdown.
More related information:
329133.KB.EN-US INF: Troubleshooting SQL Server 2000 Log Shipping "Out of
Sync" Errors
http://support.microsoft.com/default...B;EN-US;329133
314515.KB.EN-US INF: Frequently Asked Questions - SQL Server 2000 - Log
Shipping
http://support.microsoft.com/default...B;EN-US;314515
SQL Server 2000 How To Setup Log Shipping
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...&familyid=7395
ec1b-199f-42bc-a31b-2056adf73f94
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...hnet/prodtechn
ol/sql/deploy/prodspecs/logship1.asp
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| Thread-Topic: Log Shipping Question
| thread-index: AcXmR7EoN/OMKH5UTPqRcRbKocEcOg==
| X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 66.20.1.9
| From: "=?Utf-8?B?Rm9naG9ybkxlZ2hvcm4=?=" <foghornleghorn@.nospam.postalias>
| Subject: Log Shipping Question
| Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:40:03 -0800
| Lines: 17
| Message-ID: <E1996FA4-68BA-4906-9886-D05F65119C1A@.microsoft.com>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain;
| charset="Utf-8"
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| Importance: normal
| Priority: normal
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
| NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication:66533
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication
|
| I have successfully setup log shipping between my production SQL 2000
Server
| (setup in a Cluster) and my Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server (across a
WAN)
|
| What is the best way if any to stop the log shipping for a extended
period
| of time and re-enable it without setting up the entire maintenance plan
| again. Is this possible? What happened is I needed to shut down my
| production server due to hurricane Wilma as a precaution. I disabled the
log
| shipping jobs on both servers but didn't actually physicall shut down the
| Disaster Recovery SQL 2000 Server.
|
| The servers got out of synch...although it said the logs were being
shipped
| and they were working correctly after I turned the production server back
on.
| However, the log were not being copied to the Disaster Recovery Server.
|
| Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!
|
|
|

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.
- Gabe
i say go for log shipping. it is designed for a failover database
server - it maintains an exact copy of a database on your primary db
server by transfering transaction logs. Since it's restoring
transaction logs, you can even add tables, sp, etc to your primary db
and they will automatically be created on the backup db server.
My experience with replication is limited, but since it is more
flexible and not necessarly designed to mirror an entire database I
think it would introduce unecessary complexity to your situation and
require more maintenance.
steve.
|||It 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/pro...rt1/c0161.mspx
There is also some information in the following KB article:
Disaster recovery options for Microsoft SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.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 not
>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 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:

> 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.
> - 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:

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.
- Gabei say go for log shipping. it is designed for a failover database
server - it maintains an exact copy of a database on your primary db
server by transfering transaction logs. Since it's restoring
transaction logs, you can even add tables, sp, etc to your primary db
and they will automatically be created on the backup db server.
My experience with replication is limited, but since it is more
flexible and not necessarly designed to mirror an entire database I
think it would introduce unecessary complexity to your situation and
require more maintenance.
steve.|||It 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:
>sql

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.
- Gabe
It 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/pro...rt1/c0161.mspx
There is also some information in the following KB article:
Disaster recovery options for Microsoft SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.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 not
>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 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:

> 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.
> - 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:

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.
- Gabei say go for log shipping. it is designed for a failover database
server - it maintains an exact copy of a database on your primary db
server by transfering transaction logs. Since it's restoring
transaction logs, you can even add tables, sp, etc to your primary db
and they will automatically be created on the backup db server.
My experience with replication is limited, but since it is more
flexible and not necessarly designed to mirror an entire database I
think it would introduce unecessary complexity to your situation and
require more maintenance.
steve.|||It 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/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part1/c0161.mspx
There is also some information in the following KB article:
Disaster recovery options for Microsoft SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.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 not
>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 Bangås
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 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:
> 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.
> - Gabe
>
>|||Thanks, I appreciate all the replies!
"Chris Shaw" <Chris_Shaw@.SQLPASS.org> wrote in message
news:82847E0A-0820-40A4-B07F-130200E5E231@.microsoft.com...
> 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:
>> 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.
>> - Gabe
>>

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:
>

Log Shipping on Clustered SQL Server

Hi,
I'm trying to implement Log Shipping on a 2 Node SQL Cluster for certain
DB's.
As far as I understand, I've to share the folder where the transaction logs
are backed.
My questions are:
a) I cannot configure the DB to back the TRN's on a network drive, it says
"Not Allowed" The drive should be local to the SQL server.
b) If I create a share on the existing Drive where the TRN's are getting
back, that share will be lost if a failover occurs.
c) Is it like you've to write a script that will move the TRN's to a shared
Location.
I'd really appreciate any feedback on this.
Thanks a lot.
Vick
You can back up to a UNC network share.
HowTo: Backup to UNC name using Database Maintenance Wizard
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555128
If you insist on storing the backup files to local cluster disks, you need
to create a separate file share that is a clustered resource. That way, any
instance can access it regardless of the current host node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Vick Shaw" <nospam@.msft.com> wrote in message
news:eeJaOvdUHHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm trying to implement Log Shipping on a 2 Node SQL Cluster for certain
> DB's.
> As far as I understand, I've to share the folder where the transaction
> logs
> are backed.
> My questions are:
> a) I cannot configure the DB to back the TRN's on a network drive, it says
> "Not Allowed" The drive should be local to the SQL server.
> b) If I create a share on the existing Drive where the TRN's are getting
> back, that share will be lost if a failover occurs.
> c) Is it like you've to write a script that will move the TRN's to a
> shared
> Location.
> I'd really appreciate any feedback on this.
> Thanks a lot.
> Vick
>
|||Thanks Geoff..
So which is the right way to do it. Should I back it to UNC or should I
create a separate file share?
Thanks again
Vick
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23pKfx7dUHHA.4744@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> You can back up to a UNC network share.
> HowTo: Backup to UNC name using Database Maintenance Wizard
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555128
> If you insist on storing the backup files to local cluster disks, you need
> to create a separate file share that is a clustered resource. That way,
any[vbcol=seagreen]
> instance can access it regardless of the current host node.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Vick Shaw" <nospam@.msft.com> wrote in message
> news:eeJaOvdUHHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
says
>
|||Hi Geoff,
When I tried to put a UNC in the TRN log file path it gave me an error:
Error:5110 \\domain\filename.ldf is on a network device not supported for
database files.
ALTER DATABSE failed...
"Vick Shaw" <nospam@.msft.com> wrote in message
news:OS77SMgUHHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Geoff..
> So which is the right way to do it. Should I back it to UNC or should I
> create a separate file share?
> Thanks again
> Vick
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pKfx7dUHHA.4744@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
need[vbcol=seagreen]
> any
certain[vbcol=seagreen]
> says
getting
>
|||Slight misunderstanding.
I think you are trying to store an actual transaction log file, not a
transaction log backup, on a network share. At least, that is what the
error is reporting.
Which version of SQL are you using and what tool are you using? Can you
send the exact steps you are using to generate this error.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Vick Shaw" <nospam@.msft.com> wrote in message
news:uuJjFWgUHHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi Geoff,
> When I tried to put a UNC in the TRN log file path it gave me an error:
> Error:5110 \\domain\filename.ldf is on a network device not supported for
> database files.
> ALTER DATABSE failed...
> "Vick Shaw" <nospam@.msft.com> wrote in message
> news:OS77SMgUHHA.1212@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> need
> certain
> getting
>

Log Shipping on Cluster

Hi Everyone,
I'm setting up log shipping on a system that has clustering with 2 nodes. I
created the log shipping from my desktop and the application hung when it
went to create the database on the target server. I then noticed that teh
network connection was unavailable on both nodes. I'm challenged in the
clustering area and could find too much in BOL in setting this up. Do I need
to set this up right on the cluster server? Maybe there it can see the other
servers where I can't on a network workstation.
Thanks in advance
Larry
Hi
Make sure that the share is setup as a cluster resource as OS level
Regards
Mike
"Larry" wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> I'm setting up log shipping on a system that has clustering with 2 nodes. I
> created the log shipping from my desktop and the application hung when it
> went to create the database on the target server. I then noticed that teh
> network connection was unavailable on both nodes. I'm challenged in the
> clustering area and could find too much in BOL in setting this up. Do I need
> to set this up right on the cluster server? Maybe there it can see the other
> servers where I can't on a network workstation.
> Thanks in advance
> Larry

Log shipping from 64-bit to 32-bit boxes?

My company is considering a new Itanium cluster in our production
environment. Our DR boxes are still 32-bit with no plans to replace
them with 64-bit boxes. We currently log ship our production DBs from
our 32-bit production clusters to our 32-bit DR cluster.
My boss asked me this week (as part of the Itanium considerations) if
we'll be able to still log ship the production DBs from our new 64-bit
SQL instances to our 32-bit DR SQL instances. After a little thought I
said it would probably work but I've never done it myself or read
anything from someone who had done it so I couldn't say definitively
that it would work. (I fired off the question to my TAM but haven't
heard back from him.)
The only potential problem I can think of would be during the restore
phase of the sync - will a backup from a 64-bit instance restore
properly to a 32-bit instance? Do they have different internal DB
structures like SQL 7.0 vs SQL 2000 for example? If so, will that
conversion happen automagically like SQL 7 -> 2000?
Has anyone done this before (log shipping from a primary 64-bit SQL
instance to a secondary 32-bit SQL instance)? Does it work? Is it
supported by Microsoft? Can the log shipping monitor run on a 32-bit
instance?
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Never tried it yet but it should work as far as I know. You can take a 32 bit backup or detached file and restore it or attach it to a 64 bit and visa versa. So I see no reason why log shipping would not work. The internal structures do not change.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message news:uH9URVImFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
My company is considering a new Itanium cluster in our production environment. Our DR boxes are still 32-bit with no plans to replace them with 64-bit boxes. We currently log ship our production DBs from our 32-bit production clusters to our 32-bit DR cluster.
My boss asked me this week (as part of the Itanium considerations) if we'll be able to still log ship the production DBs from our new 64-bit SQL instances to our 32-bit DR SQL instances. After a little thought I said it would probably work but I've never done it myself or read anything from someone who had done it so I couldn't say definitively that it would work. (I fired off the question to my TAM but haven't heard back from him.)
The only potential problem I can think of would be during the restore phase of the sync - will a backup from a 64-bit instance restore properly to a 32-bit instance? Do they have different internal DB structures like SQL 7.0 vs SQL 2000 for example? If so, will that conversion happen automagically like SQL 7 -> 2000?
Has anyone done this before (log shipping from a primary 64-bit SQL instance to a secondary 32-bit SQL instance)? Does it work? Is it supported by Microsoft? Can the log shipping monitor run on a 32-bit instance?
mike hodgson
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com

Log shipping from 64-bit to 32-bit boxes?

My company is considering a new Itanium cluster in our production
environment. Our DR boxes are still 32-bit with no plans to replace
them with 64-bit boxes. We currently log ship our production DBs from
our 32-bit production clusters to our 32-bit DR cluster.
My boss asked me this week (as part of the Itanium considerations) if
we'll be able to still log ship the production DBs from our new 64-bit
SQL instances to our 32-bit DR SQL instances. After a little thought I
said it would probably work but I've never done it myself or read
anything from someone who had done it so I couldn't say definitively
that it would work. (I fired off the question to my TAM but haven't
heard back from him.)
The only potential problem I can think of would be during the restore
phase of the sync - will a backup from a 64-bit instance restore
properly to a 32-bit instance? Do they have different internal DB
structures like SQL 7.0 vs SQL 2000 for example? If so, will that
conversion happen automagically like SQL 7 -> 2000?
Has anyone done this before (log shipping from a primary 64-bit SQL
instance to a secondary 32-bit SQL instance)? Does it work? Is it
supported by Microsoft? Can the log shipping monitor run on a 32-bit
instance?
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.comNever tried it yet but it should work as far as I know. You can take a 32 b
it backup or detached file and restore it or attach it to a 64 bit and visa
versa. So I see no reason why log shipping would not work. The internal st
ructures do not change.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message news:uH9
URVImFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
My company is considering a new Itanium cluster in our production environmen
t. Our DR boxes are still 32-bit with no plans to replace them with 64-bit
boxes. We currently log ship our production DBs from our 32-bit production
clusters to our 32-bit DR cluster.
My boss asked me this week (as part of the Itanium considerations) if we'll
be able to still log ship the production DBs from our new 64-bit SQL instanc
es to our 32-bit DR SQL instances. After a little thought I said it would p
robably work but I've never done it myself or read anything from someone who
had done it so I couldn't say definitively that it would work. (I fired of
f the question to my TAM but haven't heard back from him.)
The only potential problem I can think of would be during the restore phase
of the sync - will a backup from a 64-bit instance restore properly to a 32-
bit instance? Do they have different internal DB structures like SQL 7.0 vs
SQL 2000 for example? If so, will that conversion happen automagically lik
e SQL 7 -> 2000?
Has anyone done this before (log shipping from a primary 64-bit SQL instance
to a secondary 32-bit SQL instance)? Does it work? Is it supported by Mic
rosoft? Can the log shipping monitor run on a 32-bit instance?
mike hodgson
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com

log shipping between sql 2005 clusters

hi

I am working for a small govt dept.We are planning to implement sql 2005.

We will be having sql 2005 instance in active/passive cluster mode

We will also have a standby sql server 2005 in active/passive cluster mode.

i need to know how to configure log shipping between my primary and secondary?

Is logshipping the best option?

Thanks

Is logshipping the best option for what? Logshipping is a fine technology but there are other ways to get data to a secondary server. You can use database mirroring in SQL Server 2005. For failover purposes this is a great option. You can also use database snapshots on the same server for various reasons to. Logshipping is perfectly viable too. What are you trying to accomplish? Having redundancy outside of the cluster? Read Only reporting copy of data?

Having that info can help us help you make your choice. I would say look up in Books Online Logshipping, Database Snapshots and Database Mirroring.

|||

Thank you very much for the reply.

I need to have an exact replica of the live enviornment (production cluster) to be switched to (standby cluster) in case of any probs to the primary. We also do switching between primary and standby every week. Basically the standby is like having a disaster recovery site. Its having Redundancy outside the cluster.

Please suggest....

Thanks in advance

|||

Options are

Database Mirroring

Can be operated in Synchronous mode which means your standby will be an exact replica of your primary database. Switching between the two is easy.

However it doesn't support replication and in synchronous mode the data has to be written to the standby and so may impact performance of your app if your network connection isn't great.

You can work in Asynchronous mode in which case the data is written to the standby at some point after the application has finished the transaction, i.e. no impact on the application. However in this mode you may loose data if your primary goes down and the transaction hasn't made it to the standby.

Database Mirroing has automatic failover in the event of a failure (when used with a witness server)

Log Shipping

Very much like asynchronous mirroring however it supports multiple targets i.e. you could have 2 standby servers, you can't do that with mirroring. Also the mechanism for applying the logs is via a copy and restore model which is slightly different to mirroring.

Replication

Much more complicated than the two above but allows for your production to be in read/write mode (although changes are not replicated back to the primary). This is a great option for maintaining a reporting server as you can have different indexes on your reporting database.

Personally if your two clusters are connected by a highspeed network (Gb/s) I would go for synchronous mirroring.

More details can be found here

ms-help://MS.VSCC.v80/MS.VSIPCC.v80/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/b2eda634-0f8e-4703-801b-7ba895544ff5.htm in BOL under the heading "Configuring for high availability."