I have been asked to create DR plan for Clearcase. I have the vobs backed up to the DR Server. What else would I need for DR?
Thanks
The kind of DR infrastructure that I had to manage involved also an SDRF mechanism in place in order to have a rela-time synchronization of the server content.
The idea of a DR is that it can take place at any time. Restarting the service in the other server wasn't enough. A quick checkdb was also required.
The other aspect was about keeping the same server name (even if its physical server changes), which means updating the DNS servers quickly enough for a client to be able to contact the new ClearCase server.
I didn't have to deal with the view server (each client was its own view server)
A separate license server was also in place on the DR server (since the hostid differs, you need to reserve a few licenses for working during a DR with IBM Rational products).
Related
I would like to know what are best practices for using SQL Server replication on a SQL Server instance that may have other application databases that may also use replication. That is, our product needs to play well with other users of the instance.
The product currently uses SQL Server replication to create a copy database used for reporting. It is always the sole user of the SQL Server instance. But we now need to document and test (regulatory requirements) how the product can share the instance.
I'm making the assumption here that we still need replication as we do not see another way to isolate reporting load from the application's database.
Has anybody done this successfully?
If we are using instance level replication:
Is there a way we can stop/start/modify replication for our application without affecting others?
Do setting differ greatly? That is, is it realistic to share instance level replication settings across applications?
Non-instance replication just looks hard, do I have the wrong view here?
Our customers use SQL Server 2008 R2 or SQL Server 2012.
At an instance level, replication configures only one distributor. That is, regardless of how many databases you have configured for replication on an instance, they'll all share one distributor. You do have the option to make that distributor local (i.e. on the same instance) or remote. So, if you find that distribution is taking up considerable resources (or anticipate that that's going to be the case), configure remote distribution.
Whatever drive holds your databases' log files will need to have sufficient headroom in their throughput to handle the logreader agent. If you're concerned that your database's activity will be impacting to other databases, isolate.
As for other concerns, replication is a lot like your line of business application. That is, it needs to read data (from the publisher and distributor depending on which phase of replication you're talking about) and write data (from the distributor and subscriber again depending on which phase of replication you're talking about). Provision resources accordingly and you should be just fine.
As far as I can tell, scaling an Azure DB from the retired tiers to the new tiers is simply a matter of using the scale function in the Azure portal.
What I cannot seem to find anywhere is a definitive answer as to whether there are any connection string changes required (or any other issues that could cause unavailability) when scaling from the retired to new tiers.
I have a production database that needs to be upgraded, service interruption would be very bad.
The scale operation will not change the connection string. You could face some (very small, but) finite amount of downtime while the switchover happens.
Please refer to the documentation for details. Note that you will be have to suspend geo-replication (if already enabled) for the duration of the upgrade.
Techincaly it will be the same server, same connection string, same everything, but version and features.
But I would be concerned about the following statement from docu:
The duration of upgrade depends on the size, edition and number of
databases in the server. The upgrade process can run for hours to days
for servers especially for servers that has databases:
Larger than 50 GB, or
At a non-premium service tier
Which is kind of concerning.
What I would do, if possible is:
Put my service into read-only mode (put on hold any writes to the DB)
Create new db in same server from the existing one with the command - CREATE DATABASE AS COPY OF ...
When creation of DB is ready, export the new db to backpac and delete the DB when export is ready.
Perform upgrade.
In theory you could do the process without putting your system into Read-Only mode, but I am just taking more precautions measures.
And yes, you also have to aware that you are upgrading your Azure SQL DB Server not just a single Database.
Hi can any body tell me what is use of replication in sqlserver2005.
backup and replicaton looks same?what is diference b/w them
Backups are exactly that: backups. They enable you to recover the data if something bad happens.
Replication is another beast entirely. It basically distributes the data across multiple nodes so that each node has a complete, (close to) up-to-date copy of the data.
There are a number of reasons why you would use replication including, but not limited to:
High availability so that, if one node goes down, other nodes can still service requests.
Geographical distribution, meaning your data can be placed close to those that need it. Clients in Belarus don't need to go all the way to Montana to get the data if you maintain a local replica in Belarus (or somewhere close) - this is for performance. You may have 10,000 clients in Belarus - it's quicker to send one copy over than have all 10,000 request data [although this depends on how often they request data].
Prioritization. If your reporting users (bank management) have a lower service level agreement than your customer-facing staff (bank tellers) [and they should], you can put all the management onto a replica so as not to slow down the primary copy.
Replication is used for a different purpose, for example to make reports without putting that load on the 'real' database.
Replication increases system availability. If one set of database is down, you can serve out of replica.
Backup saves you from catastrophic errors such as human error that dropped the production database. Note that in this case, replication won't save you as it will dutifully replicate drop command.
SQL Server replication is the process of distributing data from a source database to one or more destination databases throughout the enterprise.
Replication is a great solution for maintaining a reporting server.
Clients at the site to which the data is replicated experience improved performance because those clients can access data locally rather than connecting to a remote database server over a network.
Clients at all sites experience improved availability of replicated data. If the local copy of the replicated data is unavailable, clients can still access the remote copy of the data.
Replication: Lots of data, fast and most recent.
Backup/Restore: Some data, perhaps a bit slower, and a specific point in time.
Replication can be used to address a number of different scenarios as detailed below.
Just to be clear however, Replication is not the same as Database Backup
Scenarios:
Server to server: Replicating Data in a Server to Server Environment
Improving Scalability and Availability
Data Warehousing and Reporting
Integrating Data from Multiple Sites(Server)
Integrating Heterogeneous
Data Offloading Batch Processing
Server to client: Replicating Data Between a Server and Clients
Exchanging Data with Mobile Users
Consumer Point of Sale (POS)
Applications Integrating Data from
Multiple Sites (Client)
For a full overview of Microsoft SQL Server Replication see the following Microsoft reference.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151198(SQL.90).aspx
Choose the track that is most appropriate to you (i.e. Developer / Architect) and all shall be revealed :-)
I have two database servers running SQL Server 2005 Enterprise that I want to make one of them as mirror database server.
What I need is; to create an exact copy database from primary server on mirror server, so when the primary server was down, we could switch database IP on application to use mirror server.
I have examined "mirror" feature on SQL Server 2005, and based on this article:
http://aspalliance.com/1388_Database_Mirroring_in_Microsoft_SQL_Server_2005.all
The mirror database cannot be accessed directly; however snapshots of the mirror database can be taken for read only purposes. (Prerequisites no. 4)
So how it can be useful when I can't access it when primary server was down?
I've been thinking about creating a regular backup on primary server and restore it on mirror server on hourly basis, but that's quite inefficient (slow) especially if I want an exact copy (since hundreds data's are added once in minute).
Any other suggestion?
EDIT:
Maybe what I mean was a replication thing, not a mirror (thanks JP for commenting)
They are referring to the fact that you can't perform queries on the mirrored copy, but you can get around that limitation by creating a snapshot of the mirrored database. This is often done to create a read-only database copy for reporting uses. You would have full access of the mirror if the primary were to fail, but it will not failover automatically.
Log shipping is another option, which allows you to query (read-only) the standby database without having to create a snapshot.
If I understand your question correctly, you shouldn't have to do that. There are several role switching forms you can use to have your mirror take over as primary. You don't change the IP address at the application level, the cluster itself has a virtual IP address that allows access to the data at any given time (given a reasonable amount of time for the switch over to the mirror from a primary failure). The mirror stays in synch by itself. :) There are good articles here and here on clustering.
Edit: Okay, based on the comments, check out the various options for replication.
Your confusion is common - there's a lot of ways to do disaster recovery planning with SQL Server. I've recorded a 10-minute video tutorial of SQL Server disaster recovery options including log shipping, mirroring, replication and more. If you like that one, we've got a longer one at Quest called Disaster Recovery Techniques but that one requires registration.
Instead of investigating a specific technology here, what you might want to do is tell us what your needs are, and then we can help you find out what option is right for you. The videos will give you an idea of what kinds of information you need to know before selecting a particular solution.
When using only two SQL Servers, you need to do the fail-over manually. The 'backup' database will be usable after you do two things;
Disable mirroring on it
Restore the database with RECOVERY (but without a backup file, this will make the database usable).
Therefore mirroring in this manner does make scense, however it is hard to maintain;
Moving back from the backup database to the primary is a 'pain' as you have to set-up the complete mirroring again using a backup of the redundant server. This is needed to get the primary back up to speed.
My recommendation would be to get a thrid SQL Server into the picture that can act as a witness. The witness will monitor the status of the mirroring databases. Your bonus; you will get automatic failover, and will not have the fail-over (and after fail-over) issues.
If I remeber correct, the witness server can be running SQL Express so no need for the Enterprise version on all three - just the two where the actual mirroring will take place.
Let me know if you need Transact SQL for the commands to fail-over and 'anti-fail-over' in a two server scenario, and I can dig them up.
I remember hearing Joel say he has 2 different locations where the servers are located, each location has 2 front end servers and 1 back end server.
If a one of the hosting facilities goes down, how can he switch over to the other one? (Or is it just going to be a DNS change that will take 24-72 hours to propagate?).
How can a single SQL Server instance have so many databases on it? FB has a completely separate database per account. I can't see a single SQL Server instance having more than say 200-250 databases on it! And I'm sure they have more customers than that.
They talked about this in one of the Stack Overflow podcasts, but I can't find it in the transcripts.
1) Each of the two centers handles approximately 1/2 of the users. Fairly often (hourly, I think Joel said) they ship transaction logs to the other site. If site A goes down, they bring up the db backups on site B, and do the DNS switchover. It won't be instantaneous or automated, nor do they want it to be, because they'll be coming up with slightly stale data, and want to avoid that if it's at all possible to bring the broken site back up.
I'm not sure how they handle the DNS situation, but you can set the TTL on DNS records to mere seconds to limit caching, and have failover occur very quickly.
2) Why not? I'm not sure of the hard limit of databases per instance, but there's also nothing keeping you from running multiple instances of SQL Server on your box. I would imagine you're more limited by hardware than software. (You can also run Fogbugz with a MySQL database backend).
Got a few questions in here so I'll break these out:
If a one of the hosting facilities goes down, how can he switch over to the other one?
There's several ways to do this, including database mirroring (new in SQL Server 2005), log shipping, and replication. I've recorded a podcast on SQL Server high availability and disaster recovery options at SQLServerPedia.
(Or is it just going to be a DNS change that will take 24-72 hours to propagate?)
Like the other post mentioned, you can set your DNS time-to-live numbers very slow, but the cooler method uses database mirroring. With mirroring, you can set both the primary and secondary server names in your connection string, and your application will automatically try the second server when the first one doesn't respond.
How can a single SQL Server instance have so many databases on it? FB has a completely separate database per account. I can't see a single SQL Server instance having more than say 200-250 databases on it! And I'm sure they have more customers than that.
The largest SQL Server I've worked with had over a thousand databases, and I've talked to a couple of other DBAs who have worked on systems with more than 2,000 databases on a server. It certainly makes management much more challenging, that's for sure.