We will be implementing a mission-critical application using SQL Server 2000. At this time, we are not sure if the standard or enterprise version will be required to handle our requirement. We have two production application servers running in different locations. Ideally we would like both servers to have their own current copy of the database for access. Or else we'd like to have both servers access one database located on one of the servers and then in the event there is a database problem, have both servers access the redundant database on the other server. We are using third-party software that has control in writing information to the database and we are not sure at this time if it supports writing to two databases.
The question is: If we can't write to both databases and, therefore, will need to have both servers access a master database, what is the best approach for keeping the second database current and in synch using SQL Server Standard or Enterprise?
QUESTION POSED ON: 18 AUG 2005
QUESTION ANSWERED BY: Kevin Kline
Based upon your requirements, you definitely need Enterprise Edition running Windows Failover Clustering. If you have lower requirements for high availability, you may choose to implement log shipping rather than clustering. But you'll still want Enterprise Edition. I suggest you check out this site for more information.
|
|
|
