SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
Cluster 2003 and SQL 2005This is my 1st post here, so "hello" and here we go.
We have clusetred SQL in the past, but as a group, are not up to date on the latest technology…money, training, mgmt excuses…. Anyhow we are looking to cluster using 2003 and SQL 2005. Is it a good idea to go with Database Mirroring versus "regular" clustering? What happend in a DB Mirror if the Witness server fails? Any DTC considerations? In the past, clustering SQL was a pain and I am not sold on it. Is there a better idea for HA w/o the clustering? Thanks! Kevin
I believe Clustering is the ‘best’ solution for HA purpose and only with SQL 2005 you can take help of database mirroring which works intact like it, as the Clusering is based on server wide and if any dependants on server wide then Clustering is best to go for HA purpose.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirfaq.mspx fyi. I don’t see any issue in upgrading from SQL 2000 to 2005, and I suggest to go as a fresh installation of SQL 2005 than upgrading the SQL from 2000 to 2005. The DTC service is crucial for certain functionality in SQL Server. However, using it in a Windows 2003 cluster isn’t quite as straightforward or simple as one would like. So in this case if you’re using Win 2k3 with SQL 2005 then the DTC will remain same. Satya SKJ
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Contributing Editor & Forums Moderator
This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
SQL Server clustering and Database Mirroring are designed to meet different needs. It depends on your exact need if one or the other (or both) are best to meet your needs. Clustering is designed to failover a SQL Server instance and is not designed to protect data. Database mirroring is designed to protect data, and not a SQL Server instance. The ideal solution is to combine both so you get both instance and data protection. —————————–
Brad M. McGehee, SQL Server MVP