I have transactional replication running between two servers over a dedicated VPN connection. The databases are fairly large, so I initially use the backup and restore method to get the initial snapshot over to the subscriber machine and then let it apply the incremental transactions from there.
Everything runs fine until the VPN line gets flaky (which it does occassionally) at which point the replication process is prone to locking up. When I look on the subscriber side, there are a few SQL processes which appear to be hung and have locks held on the subscriber database and tables. The crazy thing is that those processes are coming from the replication service. I can assure you (from trial and error) that no other processes are locking this database except for replication itself.
So why would the replication process trip over its own feet like that? Why would it get hung just because of a loss of network connectivity? Any suggestions for somehow making it more reliable?
I have heard of issues like this over vpn connections. There is a post here that might help you.
Another option, if you have persistent problems, and depending on your requirements for speed and functionality, might be to use log shipping. In my humble opinion this can provide a more resilient way of moving data - at least from a networking perspective.
With SQL Server 2005 they allow you to replicate using a web service. This might not allow you to ditch the VPN but since web services are less connection driven that might help fix the problem. I haven't tried this myself so I don't know what the results may be.
As for the locks we've had a scare thinking alot of things were locked but it turned out that the replication monitor was just locking on its self so make sure you don't have that open when looking at the locks. That doesn't sound like your problem though.
I'll ask some questions and maybe they can give you some ideas as I don't have a clue here either.
Is there a way for the replicator to test for connectivity before attempting to start copying? Is there a way to put a connectivity test into whatever script you're using to perform replication? Is there a way to have the script bail in case of failure?
Related
We've had a SQL Azure cloudapp/database in production for a long time and while its performance has been a little volatile, over the last few days it has suddenly dropped drastically. Our application is unresponsive because SQL queries and stored procedures that used to take 5-10 seconds are now taking 90 seconds or more.
What are the things I should check, given that we already do regular index rebuilds/reorgs, clear down large tables when we're finished, etc.
We're still on the "Web" service tier and are planning to move soon to the newer S2 perhaps but we need to tackle this issue.
1) How many active connections does your SQL Azure DB have during slow times? Things get wierd once you get into 150+ range on a shared plan.
If you have a ton of connections open, that means you're not properly clearing them in your app somewhere.
2) Does your DB have any blocking queries? DBs with alot of blocking (deadlocking) queries may behave much slower, if you need access to locked resources
3) You should really consider switching to a dedicated SQL Azure plan. It is very quick to do and no action is required on the app-dev side. http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2014/07/08/azure-update-sql-database-easy-upgrade-to-new-service-tiers-performance-improvements-pitr-for-basic-and-automated-export-for-all-service-tiers/
4) If neither helps, contact support. This could be an issue on their end
5) Once immediate problems are resolved, consider active monitoring of your SQL Azure db's (link in my profile signature)
http://www.developer.com/services/how-to-identify-performance-bottlenecks-on-azure-sql-database.html
You could also have a device in your network that is slowing down the performance. You might want to run some network tests to see if the problem is internal or external. For instance, someone might have changed some firewall or security settings on a rollout and messed it up a bit or a device might be ready to fail.
I've got a writing and reading database application holding a local cache. In case of an application server fault a backup server shall start working.
The primary and backup application can only run exclusively because of its local cache and some low isolation level on the database.
As far as my communication knowledge goes it is impossible to let both servers always figure out who is allowed to run exclusively.
Can I somehow solve this communication conflict through using the database as a third entity? I think this is a quite typical problem and there might not be a 100% safe method, but I would be happy to know how other people recommend to solve such issues? Or if there is some best practice to this.
It's okay if both application are not working for 30 minutes or so, but there is not enough time to get people out of bed and let them figure out what the problem is.
Can you set up a third server which is monitoring both application servers for health? This server could then decide appropriately in case one of the servers appears to be gone: Instruct the hot standby to start processing.
if i get the picture right, your backup server constantly polls the primary server for data updates, it wouldn't be hard to check if the poll fails, schedule it again for 30s later 3 times and in the third failure dynamically update the DNS entry to the database server to reflect the change in active server. Both Windows DNS and Bind accept dynamic updates signed and unsigned.
I've created a software that is supposed to synchronize data between two databases in SQL Server. The program is tested as much as I was able to do so while having a limited amount of data and limited time. Now I need to make it run and I want to play that safe.
What would be the best approach to be able to recover if something goes wrong and database gets corrupted? (meaning not usable by the original program)
I know I can backup both databases each time I perform the sync. I also know that I could do point in time recovery.
Are there any other options? Is it possible to rollback only the changes made by the sync service? (both databases are going to be used by other software)
You probably have, but I suggest investigating the backup and recovery options available in SQL Server. Since you have no spec, you don't know how the system is going to behave against these changes, leaving you with a higher likelihood of problems. For this reason (and many other obvious reasons) I would want to have solid SQL backups/recovery process in place. Unfortunately Express isn't very good in automating this area, but you can run them manually before the sync.
At the very least, make everything transactional; a failure in your program should not leave the databases in a partially sync'd state.
Too bad you don't have a full version of SQL Server... then you might be able to use something like replication services and eliminate this program altogether? ;)
I have a bunch of SQL servers which I periodically performs maintainance on (Windows Update patches etc.). Now I want to the database online 24/7 and need to implement one of the high-availability solutions for SQL server.
The solutions needs to be cheap and simple to use.
I have no problems tweaking the connection strings for the clients of the database, so currently I'm looking into database mirroring with manual failovers when taking down a partner instance for patching etc.
Is this the best thing to do or are there other options which doesn't involve setting up a failover cluster?
The servers are virtualized with a fully redundant storage solution.
Any tips are appreciated, thanks in advance!
Mirroring with a PARTNER-server would probably be the cheapest solution (you can skip the PARTNER-server if you plan to switch manually).
Failover requires shared disks (NAS) aswell as cluster-capable Windows-licenses (very expensive).
I'm not sure about replication, or how it differs from mirroring, but my research I did gave the conclusion that mirroring was the one for me. However I don't mind some downtime when doing upgrades, I just keep mirrored instances of the database in case of severe hardware failure.
It might be that replication is for a complete instance of an SQL-server, whilst mirroring is done per database. In my case, I have 2 production servers, that both replicates it's databases to a third, backup-server for disaster-recovery. I think that wouldn't have been possible with replication.
The four high availability solutions I'm aware of are:
Failover cluster
Log shipping
Mirroring
Replication
Log shipping is probably not 24/7, so that leaves three. Serverfault is definitely a better place to ask about their relative merits.
For auto failover I would choose mirroring. You can build a 2nd database connection string into your app and whenever the preferred isnt available it will default to the backup - therefore giving your app 24/7. This has its downsides though, once 'flipped' to the mirror you have to either accept that this is the way it is until another maintenance job requires the mirror to shift back again or you have to manually swap the mirror over.
In order for this to be truly 24/7 you will need to enable auto rather than manual, maybe you will need a witness server to make the decision... There are lots of factors to include in the choice - are you working with servers on different sites, clustering, multiple web/app servers ... ?
As previous answers have suggested, https://serverfault.com/search?q=sql+mirroring will have people who have made just this choice, ready to help you in much more detail
A big benefit of mirroring is that providing the mirror server has no other activity it is license free, the live server license transfers over if the mirror takes over. Full details on SQL licensing pages at microsoft.com
I'm not a DBA so this may be a stupid question but I'll ask it anyway. We're upgrading our SQL Servers from 2000 to 2005 and we will probably use either database replication or database mirroring. Our DBA would like to "multipurpose" the standby server meaning that he'd like to increase our capabilities and capacity by running other database applications on the standby server since "it's just going to be sitting there anyway" (his words, not mine). Is this such a good idea? Right now, our main application server uses only one instance that contains 50+ databases. As I understand it, what we're doing now and what our DBA is proposing for a failover server is a bad idea because all of these databases are sharing memory, CPUs, and working areas. If one applications starts behaving badly, the other DBs could be affected.
Any thoughts?
It's really a business question that needs to be answered?? is a slow app better then no app if you can't afford the expense of extra hardware?
Standby and mirrored db's can be used for reporting. Using it as the failover db can work if you have enough headroom (i.e. both databases will comfortably run on the server)
Will you depend on these extra applications? Where do they run in the failover case?
You really need to understand your failure modes.
If you look at it as basic resource math, that doesn't often make sense unless the resources you have running in the failure scenarios can handle the entire expected load. Sometimes this is the case, but not always. In this case, to handle the actual load you may need yet another server to come in (like RAID - perhaps your load needs a minimum of 5 servers, but you have a farm of 6, then you need 1 standby server for ever server to fail above 1). Sometimes a farm can run degraded, but sometimes they just puke and die.
And in the case of out of normal operation, you often have accident cascading where a legitimate incident causes a cascade of issues - e.g. your backup tape is busy restoring a server from a backup (to a test environment, even - there are no real "failures"), now your sql server or exhcange server (or both) is not backed up and your log gets full.
Database Mirroring would not be the way to go here in my opinion as it provides redundancy at the database level only. So you would need to configure database mirroring for up to 50 databases based on the information you provided. The chances are that if one DB where to fail all, 50 would probably follow, as failures typically occur at the hardware level rather than a specific database.
It sounds to me like you should be using SQL Server Clustering technology. You could create an Active/Active cluster to support your requirements.
What is an Active/Active Cluster?
An Active/Active SQL Server cluster means that SQL Server is running on both nodes of a two-way cluster. Each copy of SQL Server acts independently, and users see two different SQL Servers. If one of the SQL Servers in the cluster should fail, then the failed instance of SQL Server will failover to the remaining server. This means that then both instances of SQL Server will be running on one physical server, instead of two.
Applying this to your scenario
You could then split the databases between two instances of SQL server, one active instance on each node. Should one node fail, the other node will pick up the slack and vice versa.
Further Reading
An introduction to SQL Server Clustering
I suspect that you will find the following MSDN thread useful reading also
"it's just going to be sitting there anyway"
It will be sitting there applying transactions...
Take note of John Sansom's recommendation. Keep in mind that a Active/Active cluster requires two sql server licenses and a failover cluster/mirror only needs one.
Setting up mirroring for a large number of db's could turn into a big pain. You need any jobs/maintenance to move over as well - which can be achieved with alerts on WMI failover events. There's probably more to think about that could complicate things.