Oops! I apologize for replying to the wrong thread. Meant to reply to the
'Hardware Match' thread. Should have double-checked before clicking on Post.
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> As far as HCL is concerned, constructing a cluster out of the servers on HCL
> doesn't make the cluster certified for Windows 2000/2003. Clusters are a
> separate category all by itself. See
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/default.aspx?subID=22&xslt=hardwarehome >
> Linchi
>
> "Dennis Burgess" wrote:
>
> > Simply put we have a Single SQL 2005 server running our applications. This
> > server runs great, low load, databases under 200 meg mostly, maybe 2 gig of
> > total data.
> >
> > We do backup via NetVault to tape everynight.
> >
> > What we want though, is a SECOND, physical server with the same databases,
> > that preferrably, with either do 1 of 2 things.
> >
> > 1. If server 1 is not running, failed, whatever, server 2 will take over
> > within decent amount of time. No configuration on user end needed.
> > 2. If server 1 not running, whatever, be able to have a backup sql server
> > with the latest data that was avabiled from Server 1 to be able to add an IP
> > or whatever to get the sql server going for end users.
> >
> > Thats is, no HIGH load, no massive issues, just want a simple way to be able
> > to be back up quickly in the event of a physical server failure. Both
> > servers are P4 3.0 gig with 4 gig RAM and RAID 5 arrarys. They are
> > phsycaially identical.
> >
> > Suggestions, comments?
> >
> > We are not running vitual server, so I think that rules out clusting, we are
> > just running Windows 2003 with the latest service packs, gigabit nics.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
