Re: Advantages of an SQL 2005 cluster from transaction point of view
- From: Denny Cherry <mrdenny.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:32:39 -0700
Clustering will not effect the transaction count which your SQL Server
can handle. Clustering is designed to keep the SQL Server running in
the event of a hardware failure.
In the event of a hardware failure of the active node, the passive
node will start the SQL Service, and begin taking transactions usually
within seconds.
Log shipping will usually take a few minutes to fail over (assuming
that you have it setup to do so) and begin taking transactions.
Cluster service is designed as a high availability solution. Log
shipping is considered a disaster recovery solution, used to ship data
from one data center to another.
Denny
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:20:00 -0700, Sabi
<Sabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Guys,.
We are considering whether an SQL cluster (MSCS) may have any advantages
from transaction handling point of view. I mean mscs is a solution to correct
only hardware failures but it does not have any advantages on transactions
level. We are making a comparison between SQL log shipping and clustered sql
servers, this is why it is an important question. Do you have pros cons on
any side but only from transaction point of view? As i understand
transacation loss could be occur on clusters as well if a node crashes so sql
log shipping could be more secure in this case. Any advantage on cluster side?
Thank you for your help!
Sabi
- Prev by Date: Re: SQL 2005 linked server to SQL 2000, need to run instcat.sql
- Next by Date: Re: Advantages of an SQL 2005 cluster from transaction point of view
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL 2005 linked server to SQL 2000, need to run instcat.sql
- Next by thread: Re: Advantages of an SQL 2005 cluster from transaction point of view
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
