March 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Hi everybody,
In our Company we created a Data Mirror with Automatic failover.
This is a great solution but we realized that having mirror database in a SYNCHRONIZED mode affects our database performance.
So what will be the recommendations?
Do you think that we need to replace Data Mirror with the Clustering?
Or maybe we better create a Clustering environment and run them together?
Or maybe instead of cluster involve the log shipping into our mirror sessions?
For some of you this would probably sound as a naive question. But I'm not too proficient with all the HA Solutions.
And I beleive that many folks would be interested to hear about the best HA approaches from the top SQL Server professionals.
Thank you in advance.
Alex
March 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm
What is the design intended to provide?
Do you require purely a fail over scenario for redundancy or replicated copies of the database for reporting offload, etc.
Clustering generally has a higher cost overhead than mirroring or LS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
March 18, 2012 at 2:27 am
Clustering will take care of the issues you are facing with performance. however you could consider setting database mirroring to high performance mode than high safety. Clustering is expensive but you migh be able to get away with a active active configuration.
Replication is also a good option if automatic failover is not a high priority and you cud use the scale out.
March 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
Thank you for all your replies.
Our intend is to implement the HA Solutions in out multi-server-database's environment with limited budget.
We do have the Mirror installed already. And we are going to use this solution for the Reporting Services via the Snapshots.
We cannot sacrifize the Performance though because the client's sales depends pretty much on the speed of the database transactions.
But from your responseas I still could not figure out if there are any benefits to run the Data Mirror and Clustering side by side.
Or if there are benefits of running Mirror and LS at the same time?
Again, all your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Alex
March 19, 2012 at 9:04 am
If you haven't already, I'd start looking at SQL Server 2012 and Always On. It provides the benefits of both clustering and database mirroring.
March 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
I'd agree with Lynn that you might want to look at 2012 AlwaysOn.
In terms of cluster + mirror. Clustering gives you instance protection from anything except disk failures. Mirroring does a better job with disk failures, but it doesn't handle instance stuff. No jobs, multiple databases, etc.
Mirroring can give you offsite protection.
People often mix clustering for local protection, with mirroring for offsite protection. Or mirroring locally with LS to another location.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
March 19, 2012 at 10:42 am
Jayanth_Kurup (3/18/2012)
however you could consider setting database mirroring to high performance mode than high safety.
Just my 2c worth but i wouldnt go to HP mode. You are mirroring 'pressumably' for some form of continuety management. With HP you havent got a 100% assurance that your mirror is following your principal.... so if thats how you feel why bother, go LS.
Jayanth_Kurup (3/18/2012)
Replication is also a good option if automatic failover is not a high priority and you cud use the scale out.
This would also be a solution for reporting (based on your LS and reporting schedules). You could save space by not needing snapshots.
I would though be concerned that mirroring is having such an effct on performance. We have a clustered environement (a/p) and mirror to an SCF. We have about 180GB daily churn on our main DB and the mirror copes fine (live SAN to scf SAN). We dont have any witness as we want to control any failovers (witnesses can be tempramental and sensitive).
In answer to your question, 'it depends', on your environment and needs....
BUT: I would say mirror should be all you need (if your keeping snapshots). Though it sounds like connectivity/bandwidth between your endpoints is not great. You could mirror over dedicated nics?
Adam Zacks-------------------------------------------Be Nice, Or Leave
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply