Need to maintain transational consistency of the data across both servers, need to achieve these goals...
Are all power cords made equal?
Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?
How can changes in personality/values of a person who turned into a vampire be explained?
Partial derivative with respect to three variables
Is there a Tezos equivalent of ERC?
What really causes series inductance of capacitors?
Why write a book when there's a movie in my head?
How to Build a List from Separate Lists
What is the reward?
How can I differentiate duration vs starting time
Why don't programs completely uninstall (remove all their files) when I remove them?
Can an attached stirge deal no more than 10 HP of damage before it detaches?
Buying a "Used" Router
Why is it that Bernie Sanders always called a "socialist"?
Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract
Is Screenshot Time-tracking Common?
Coworker asking me to not bring cakes due to self control issue. What should I do?
Do the speed limit reductions due to pollution also apply to electric cars in France?
How bad is a Computer Science course that doesn't teach Design Patterns?
Converting numbers to words - Python
In a post apocalypse world, with no power and few survivors, would Satnav still work?
Is it possible to narrate a novel in a faux-historical style without alienating the reader?
What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?
Multiple null checks in Java 8
Need to maintain transational consistency of the data across both servers, need to achieve these goals without manual intervention
AlwaysOn AG, DTC with failoverClustering vs. transactional replication vs. availability groupsDoes “Synchronous-Commit Availability Mode” ensure consistency between Replicas?Secondary replica indexingSQL Server 2012 AlwaysOn Availability GroupAlwaysOn Synchronous Mode PossibiltyAvailability Groups using Multi-Subnet Clustering: Preferred Owners for Roles and Possible Owners for AG Listener IPsAvailability Group of SQL Servers 2012, 2012 and 2016 possible?Multi-homed SQL Server with High Availability GroupsAlwaysOn commit on Primary if Secondary goes down
I got this question about MS SQL Server 2012 administration, two production servers in the same data center. You need to ensure that database remains available if a catastrophic server failure or a disk failure occurs.
You need to maintain transactional consistency of the data across both servers. You need to achieve these goals without manual intervention.
The correct answer for the above question is
>>
Two servers configured on the same subnet
SQL Server Availability Group configured in Synchronous-Commit Availability Mode
<<
But I think the correct answer should be
Two servers configured in Windows Failover Cluster in the same data center SQL Server configured as a clustered instance<<
sql-server sql-server-2012
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Sep 15 '15 at 14:05
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
I got this question about MS SQL Server 2012 administration, two production servers in the same data center. You need to ensure that database remains available if a catastrophic server failure or a disk failure occurs.
You need to maintain transactional consistency of the data across both servers. You need to achieve these goals without manual intervention.
The correct answer for the above question is
>>
Two servers configured on the same subnet
SQL Server Availability Group configured in Synchronous-Commit Availability Mode
<<
But I think the correct answer should be
Two servers configured in Windows Failover Cluster in the same data center SQL Server configured as a clustered instance<<
sql-server sql-server-2012
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Sep 15 '15 at 14:05
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
I got this question about MS SQL Server 2012 administration, two production servers in the same data center. You need to ensure that database remains available if a catastrophic server failure or a disk failure occurs.
You need to maintain transactional consistency of the data across both servers. You need to achieve these goals without manual intervention.
The correct answer for the above question is
>>
Two servers configured on the same subnet
SQL Server Availability Group configured in Synchronous-Commit Availability Mode
<<
But I think the correct answer should be
Two servers configured in Windows Failover Cluster in the same data center SQL Server configured as a clustered instance<<
sql-server sql-server-2012
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
I got this question about MS SQL Server 2012 administration, two production servers in the same data center. You need to ensure that database remains available if a catastrophic server failure or a disk failure occurs.
You need to maintain transactional consistency of the data across both servers. You need to achieve these goals without manual intervention.
The correct answer for the above question is
>>
Two servers configured on the same subnet
SQL Server Availability Group configured in Synchronous-Commit Availability Mode
<<
But I think the correct answer should be
Two servers configured in Windows Failover Cluster in the same data center SQL Server configured as a clustered instance<<
sql-server sql-server-2012
sql-server sql-server-2012
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
asked Sep 15 '15 at 3:35
Yevgraf Andreyevich ZhivagoYevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago
2181215
2181215
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 11 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Sep 15 '15 at 14:05
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Sep 15 '15 at 14:05
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The first scenario is actually the more correct implementation. In future versions of SQL Server (starting with 2016), the standard "Failover cluster" model is deprecated. Microsoft is shifting to the HA (High Availability) model via SQL Server Availability groups, which is essentially Mirroring and Clustering mixed together (no need for a witness server), with the data completely replicated to each node in the group.
Failover time is < 1 second, according to Microsoft professionals, as opposed to standard Failover Clustering, which can take 1+ minute for a successful automatic failover. SQL Server Availability Groups would be the way to go from this point forward.
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115087%2fneed-to-maintain-transational-consistency-of-the-data-across-both-servers-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The first scenario is actually the more correct implementation. In future versions of SQL Server (starting with 2016), the standard "Failover cluster" model is deprecated. Microsoft is shifting to the HA (High Availability) model via SQL Server Availability groups, which is essentially Mirroring and Clustering mixed together (no need for a witness server), with the data completely replicated to each node in the group.
Failover time is < 1 second, according to Microsoft professionals, as opposed to standard Failover Clustering, which can take 1+ minute for a successful automatic failover. SQL Server Availability Groups would be the way to go from this point forward.
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
add a comment |
The first scenario is actually the more correct implementation. In future versions of SQL Server (starting with 2016), the standard "Failover cluster" model is deprecated. Microsoft is shifting to the HA (High Availability) model via SQL Server Availability groups, which is essentially Mirroring and Clustering mixed together (no need for a witness server), with the data completely replicated to each node in the group.
Failover time is < 1 second, according to Microsoft professionals, as opposed to standard Failover Clustering, which can take 1+ minute for a successful automatic failover. SQL Server Availability Groups would be the way to go from this point forward.
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
add a comment |
The first scenario is actually the more correct implementation. In future versions of SQL Server (starting with 2016), the standard "Failover cluster" model is deprecated. Microsoft is shifting to the HA (High Availability) model via SQL Server Availability groups, which is essentially Mirroring and Clustering mixed together (no need for a witness server), with the data completely replicated to each node in the group.
Failover time is < 1 second, according to Microsoft professionals, as opposed to standard Failover Clustering, which can take 1+ minute for a successful automatic failover. SQL Server Availability Groups would be the way to go from this point forward.
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
The first scenario is actually the more correct implementation. In future versions of SQL Server (starting with 2016), the standard "Failover cluster" model is deprecated. Microsoft is shifting to the HA (High Availability) model via SQL Server Availability groups, which is essentially Mirroring and Clustering mixed together (no need for a witness server), with the data completely replicated to each node in the group.
Failover time is < 1 second, according to Microsoft professionals, as opposed to standard Failover Clustering, which can take 1+ minute for a successful automatic failover. SQL Server Availability Groups would be the way to go from this point forward.
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
answered Sep 15 '15 at 16:42
Greg CardallGreg Cardall
273
273
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
add a comment |
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
FCI is deprecated? Can you give me the link to where you read this?
– James Anderson
Sep 15 '15 at 17:08
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
My mistake - 2016 is the last version it will be in. Synchronous mode will only be in the Enterprise version - Asynchronous will come default in Standard edition. I don't have a link, I apologize. I went to a local SQL training for EMC, hosted by a Microsoft SQL MVP who shared this information.
– Greg Cardall
Sep 15 '15 at 21:56
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115087%2fneed-to-maintain-transational-consistency-of-the-data-across-both-servers-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
