Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have an AWS RDS SQL Server RDS instance running with mirroring (Multi-AZ). Typically the mirror failover server has to be declared in the connection string as per http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5h52hef8(v=vs.110).aspx
I can't find what the "Failover Partner" should be in the aws console.
Does aws/rds take care of this behind the scenes so i only have to declare 1 server?
This should be handled by AWS for you using DNS changes only:
The primary and standby instances use the same endpoint whose physical
network address transitions to the mirror as part of the failover
process, so you do not have to reconfigure your application or set up
multiple endpoints when a failover occurs.
From here:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_SQLServer.html#SQLServer.Concepts.General.Mirroring
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Does it make sense to change from MongoDB to SQL Server in the MEAN full stack (Node Express and Angular)?
In today's data environment, the unfortunate truth is that there is no one "right" data appliance for all use cases. At my last job, we used Hadoop for our streaming data, Couchbase as a web data caching layer, Hive when we needed the illusion of a relational database, SQL Server on Azure when we needed a temporal data store with more than the illusion of relational characteristics, on prem SQL Servers when for the persistence layer where we needed actual relational data, and a Netezza cube for reporting. There's not a handy acronym for that hot mess.
I will say that a lot of shops that are primarily NoSQL focused like Postgres as an RDBMS addition since it keeps with the whole open source philosophy, but your mileage may vary.
The TLDR; answer to your question is that it depends on your use case(s), and there's no avoiding painful hours of research and probably a few false starts before you land on a solution that works for you.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We installed TFS Server 2015 Update 2 in September 2016 and we are wondering if we should have a SQL maintenance plan (to rebuild indexes for example) on TFS.
In the documentation, they explained how to set it up, how to setup the backups, but nothing about the maintenance plan.
Is there anyone that tried it out? Is it worth it?
Thanks!
You shouldn't. TFS has its own "Optimize Database" jobs for index maintenance.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
If someone asks me to check the database health in a particular SQL Server database, which has been running for couple of years, what are the possible areas that I need to check? Do we have any tools to support for that?
Kindly provide some recommended links also to refer.
You need to do two things (at a bare minimum):
Make sure that backups are being taken on a regular basis and that at least once a full restore was done from the backups and that the restore was verified to contain valid, up to date, data.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187510.aspx
Run 'DBCC checkdb' on the instance. It will take a while and can be a resource hog (you may want to run it at night or over a weekend.) Be very careful in reading the results and figuring out what to do if it detects errors.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms176064.aspx
http://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/paul/category/checkdb-from-every-angle/
If you do the above you may be held responsible for any, and all, issues that will ever occur to SQL Server including data entry errors.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Looking at the prices for RDS instances, the multi-AZ instances cost double. Having a production environment in mind, does it worth it?
What uptime should I expect from a single-AZ instance, as opposed to a multi-AZ one? Has anyone had experience running a production DB on both single and multi availability zones?
We have a multi-AZ production deployment with AWS RDS and it's been working fabulously well for the last 3 years.
The multi-AZ catalog page clearly lists out the benefit of using a multi-az vs single RDS deployment. One of the most important aspects of running multi-az is the fact that if one of the AZ in a region goes down, the production application traffic is automatically routed to the RDS in the alternate AZ. Also, DB maintenance and upgrades are applied to the RDS per AZ basis (for a multi-AZ RDS) without impacting uptime.
With respect to cost, it is totally up to the nature of the application as to how much is the degree of downtime tolerance that it can sustain. It's a cost vs uptime trade-off.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
A network related or instance specific error occurred while establishing a connection to sql server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL server is configured to allow remote connections. (Named Pipes Provider error 40)
The solution for the above error has been clearly mentioned on many blogs. My problem is a bit different but revolves around this error.
On my network some computers are able to connect to SQL Server and a few computers can't connect. I have disabled firewalls on both end for the time being but this has not resolved the issue. Please I will really appreciate any help.
Since you cannot ping your server, and the firewall is down, the issue is network related, totally independent of SQL Server.
If you want help resolving your network issue, you will need to describe your network topology in detail.
#Tarik It seems the problem is in the network firewall.
The Firewall in the network infrastructure is blocking the connection. Unfortunately I don't have direct access to the firewall or any control over network administration. Unfortunately although the problem has been solved I could not understand the root cause of this problem. The computers that we connected are assigned an IP Address dynamically and are under the same subnet but only a few computers within this subnet could not connect to the server. As far as I know the network admin did not block anything within this subnet so I am still confused and clueless as to what caused this problem