"RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound stupid. I am
a
> newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server running SQL
> with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The HDD's are
> configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We just
recently
> experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and there is a
> sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not have the
> budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise for
> clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby cold fail
> over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the primary
goes
> down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up? Are there
> any best practices?
>
> In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup. As a
result
> we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We had to end
> up biting the bullet by being down the the most part of the day, while the
> server OS was re-built. Assuming something similar happens on the SQL
> Server, how can I move the latest copy of the database over to the
failover
> server? Any suggestions? I know there are some options like having an
> external rackmount storage system, but to my knowledge those are pretty
> expensive and provided by EMC etc.
>
> thanks a bunch!
>
>

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:Ot1BHW0QEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Without Enterprise Edition and its associated clustering feature, your
next
> best availability technologies are replication and log shipping. I
strongly
> discourage replication as an availability option since many database
> elements are not replicated. Log shipping is included with Enterprise
> Edition, but you can 'roll your own' without too much difficulty. The SQL
> Server 2000 Resource Kit includes a simple log shipping example that you
can
> adapt for your site. This will allow you to keep the data fairly current
> with your production server, but will require a fair amount of manual
> intervention to 'go live'.
>
> My suggestion is to examine your disaster recovery policy now and offer
> alternatives to your management based on expected cost and expected system
> availability. SQL Clustering is one option and log shipping is another.
> (You can combine them by log shipping to another site and really be
> prepared.) Offer them a choice and show what the different levels of
> spending actually buy in terms of system availability. You may be
surprised
> what becomes affordable when the choice is presented as a business
decision,
> not a technology decision.
>
> No matter which technology path you choose, documentation and training
will
> be the keys to meeting your availability targets. You must have a good
plan
> and the personnel to implement it. Otherwise the technology doesn't get
you
> squat.
>
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound stupid. I
am
> a
> > newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server running
SQL
> > with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The HDD's are
> > configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We just
> recently
> > experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and there is a
> > sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not have
the
> > budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise for
> > clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby cold
fail
> > over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the primary
> goes
> > down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up? Are
there
> > any best practices?
> >
> > In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup. As a
> result
> > we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We had to
end
> > up biting the bullet by being down the the most part of the day, while
the
> > server OS was re-built. Assuming something similar happens on the SQL
> > Server, how can I move the latest copy of the database over to the
> failover
> > server? Any suggestions? I know there are some options like having an
> > external rackmount storage system, but to my knowledge those are pretty
> > expensive and provided by EMC etc.
> >
> > thanks a bunch!
> >
> >
>
>

"RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eoURYM1QEHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the options. I will look into Log Shipping & the SQL Resource
> Kit.
>
> As far as business decision vs technology decision, easier said than done
> when working for a company of your size. When it comes to small business,
a
> whole different set of rules come into play.
>
> thanks again!
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:Ot1BHW0QEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Without Enterprise Edition and its associated clustering feature, your
> next
> > best availability technologies are replication and log shipping. I
> strongly
> > discourage replication as an availability option since many database
> > elements are not replicated. Log shipping is included with Enterprise
> > Edition, but you can 'roll your own' without too much difficulty. The
SQL
> > Server 2000 Resource Kit includes a simple log shipping example that you
> can
> > adapt for your site. This will allow you to keep the data fairly
current
> > with your production server, but will require a fair amount of manual
> > intervention to 'go live'.
> >
> > My suggestion is to examine your disaster recovery policy now and offer
> > alternatives to your management based on expected cost and expected
system
> > availability. SQL Clustering is one option and log shipping is another.
> > (You can combine them by log shipping to another site and really be
> > prepared.) Offer them a choice and show what the different levels of
> > spending actually buy in terms of system availability. You may be
> surprised
> > what becomes affordable when the choice is presented as a business
> decision,
> > not a technology decision.
> >
> > No matter which technology path you choose, documentation and training
> will
> > be the keys to meeting your availability targets. You must have a good
> plan
> > and the personnel to implement it. Otherwise the technology doesn't get
> you
> > squat.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Careerbuilder.com
> >
> > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound stupid.
I
> am
> > a
> > > newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server running
> SQL
> > > with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The HDD's are
> > > configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We just
> > recently
> > > experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and there is a
> > > sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not have
> the
> > > budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise for
> > > clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby cold
> fail
> > > over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the
primary
> > goes
> > > down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up? Are
> there
> > > any best practices?
> > >
> > > In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup. As a
> > result
> > > we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We had to
> end
> > > up biting the bullet by being down the the most part of the day, while
> the
> > > server OS was re-built. Assuming something similar happens on the SQL
> > > Server, how can I move the latest copy of the database over to the
> > failover
> > > server? Any suggestions? I know there are some options like having an
> > > external rackmount storage system, but to my knowledge those are
pretty
> > > expensive and provided by EMC etc.
> > >
> > > thanks a bunch!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:O4KuwU1QEHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Actually, it is the same rules. Size and scale may determine which
solution
> is best, but the inputs of cost and availability don't change. The only
> difference is a business decision of whether the additional uptime is an
> effective way to spend the company's money. Of course everyone has budget
> limits. Sometimes major availability enhancements take a while to get
> approved and implemented.
>
> No matter what the decision is, you are fine since management will now be
> aware of the risks and has active input in deciding how to mitigate them.
> This works the same no matter how big or small your business.
>
> Again, you can work on procedures, documentation, and training even
without
> a huge budget. I guarantee you that will improve system availability and
> recoverability.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eoURYM1QEHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Thanks for the options. I will look into Log Shipping & the SQL Resource
> > Kit.
> >
> > As far as business decision vs technology decision, easier said than
done
> > when working for a company of your size. When it comes to small
business,
> a
> > whole different set of rules come into play.
> >
> > thanks again!
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ot1BHW0QEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > Without Enterprise Edition and its associated clustering feature, your
> > next
> > > best availability technologies are replication and log shipping. I
> > strongly
> > > discourage replication as an availability option since many database
> > > elements are not replicated. Log shipping is included with Enterprise
> > > Edition, but you can 'roll your own' without too much difficulty. The
> SQL
> > > Server 2000 Resource Kit includes a simple log shipping example that
you
> > can
> > > adapt for your site. This will allow you to keep the data fairly
> current
> > > with your production server, but will require a fair amount of manual
> > > intervention to 'go live'.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is to examine your disaster recovery policy now and
offer
> > > alternatives to your management based on expected cost and expected
> system
> > > availability. SQL Clustering is one option and log shipping is
another.
> > > (You can combine them by log shipping to another site and really be
> > > prepared.) Offer them a choice and show what the different levels of
> > > spending actually buy in terms of system availability. You may be
> > surprised
> > > what becomes affordable when the choice is presented as a business
> > decision,
> > > not a technology decision.
> > >
> > > No matter which technology path you choose, documentation and training
> > will
> > > be the keys to meeting your availability targets. You must have a
good
> > plan
> > > and the personnel to implement it. Otherwise the technology doesn't
get
> > you
> > > squat.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geoff N. Hiten
> > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > > Senior Database Administrator
> > > Careerbuilder.com
> > >
> > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > > www.sqlpass.org
> > >
> > > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound
stupid.
> I
> > am
> > > a
> > > > newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server
running
> > SQL
> > > > with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The HDD's
are
> > > > configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We just
> > > recently
> > > > experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and there is
a
> > > > sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not
have
> > the
> > > > budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise for
> > > > clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby
cold
> > fail
> > > > over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the
> primary
> > > goes
> > > > down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up? Are
> > there
> > > > any best practices?
> > > >
> > > > In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup. As a
> > > result
> > > > we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We had
to
> > end
> > > > up biting the bullet by being down the the most part of the day,
while
> > the
> > > > server OS was re-built. Assuming something similar happens on the
SQL
> > > > Server, how can I move the latest copy of the database over to the
> > > failover
> > > > server? Any suggestions? I know there are some options like having
an
> > > > external rackmount storage system, but to my knowledge those are
> pretty
> > > > expensive and provided by EMC etc.
> > > >
> > > > thanks a bunch!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OLF0ZRBSEHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Geoff, after doing some reading it appears that log shipping is only
> available in Enterprise Edition. We are running Standard Edition. What
> options am I left with to have a cold standby server with upto date data
> incase the primary goes down? You had some reservations against
replication
> since all database elements are not replicated. What other options do I
> have, other than restoring the last known good backup on the secondary
> server?
>
> thanks!
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:O4KuwU1QEHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Actually, it is the same rules. Size and scale may determine which
> solution
> > is best, but the inputs of cost and availability don't change. The only
> > difference is a business decision of whether the additional uptime is an
> > effective way to spend the company's money. Of course everyone has
budget
> > limits. Sometimes major availability enhancements take a while to get
> > approved and implemented.
> >
> > No matter what the decision is, you are fine since management will now
be
> > aware of the risks and has active input in deciding how to mitigate
them.
> > This works the same no matter how big or small your business.
> >
> > Again, you can work on procedures, documentation, and training even
> without
> > a huge budget. I guarantee you that will improve system availability
and
> > recoverability.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Careerbuilder.com
> >
> > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eoURYM1QEHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Thanks for the options. I will look into Log Shipping & the SQL
Resource
> > > Kit.
> > >
> > > As far as business decision vs technology decision, easier said than
> done
> > > when working for a company of your size. When it comes to small
> business,
> > a
> > > whole different set of rules come into play.
> > >
> > > thanks again!
> > >
> > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Ot1BHW0QEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > Without Enterprise Edition and its associated clustering feature,
your
> > > next
> > > > best availability technologies are replication and log shipping. I
> > > strongly
> > > > discourage replication as an availability option since many database
> > > > elements are not replicated. Log shipping is included with
Enterprise
> > > > Edition, but you can 'roll your own' without too much difficulty.
The
> > SQL
> > > > Server 2000 Resource Kit includes a simple log shipping example that
> you
> > > can
> > > > adapt for your site. This will allow you to keep the data fairly
> > current
> > > > with your production server, but will require a fair amount of
manual
> > > > intervention to 'go live'.
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion is to examine your disaster recovery policy now and
> offer
> > > > alternatives to your management based on expected cost and expected
> > system
> > > > availability. SQL Clustering is one option and log shipping is
> another.
> > > > (You can combine them by log shipping to another site and really be
> > > > prepared.) Offer them a choice and show what the different levels
of
> > > > spending actually buy in terms of system availability. You may be
> > > surprised
> > > > what becomes affordable when the choice is presented as a business
> > > decision,
> > > > not a technology decision.
> > > >
> > > > No matter which technology path you choose, documentation and
training
> > > will
> > > > be the keys to meeting your availability targets. You must have a
> good
> > > plan
> > > > and the personnel to implement it. Otherwise the technology doesn't
> get
> > > you
> > > > squat.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Geoff N. Hiten
> > > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > > > Senior Database Administrator
> > > > Careerbuilder.com
> > > >
> > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > > > www.sqlpass.org
> > > >
> > > > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound
> stupid.
> > I
> > > am
> > > > a
> > > > > newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server
> running
> > > SQL
> > > > > with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The HDD's
> are
> > > > > configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We just
> > > > recently
> > > > > experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and there
is
> a
> > > > > sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not
> have
> > > the
> > > > > budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise for
> > > > > clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby
> cold
> > > fail
> > > > > over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the
> > primary
> > > > goes
> > > > > down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up?
Are
> > > there
> > > > > any best practices?
> > > > >
> > > > > In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup. As
a
> > > > result
> > > > > we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We
had
> to
> > > end
> > > > > up biting the bullet by being down the the most part of the day,
> while
> > > the
> > > > > server OS was re-built. Assuming something similar happens on the
> SQL
> > > > > Server, how can I move the latest copy of the database over to the
> > > > failover
> > > > > server? Any suggestions? I know there are some options like having
> an
> > > > > external rackmount storage system, but to my knowledge those are
> > pretty
> > > > > expensive and provided by EMC etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks a bunch!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:urxatWBSEHA.3168@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Log shipping is included with Enterprise Edition. You can 'roll your own'
> with any edition. Before you ask, yes, it is legal provided all servers
> involved are properly licensed. The SQL Server Resource Kit has an
example
> that will work with standard edition of SQL Server. You will probably
need
> to tweak it for your specific needs, but it is a good starting point. I
> have Enterprise Edition, primarily for the scalability and clustering
> features, but I wrote my own log shipping because the included product
> didn't meet all of my needs.
>
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OLF0ZRBSEHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Geoff, after doing some reading it appears that log shipping is only
> > available in Enterprise Edition. We are running Standard Edition. What
> > options am I left with to have a cold standby server with upto date data
> > incase the primary goes down? You had some reservations against
> replication
> > since all database elements are not replicated. What other options do I
> > have, other than restoring the last known good backup on the secondary
> > server?
> >
> > thanks!
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> > news:O4KuwU1QEHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Actually, it is the same rules. Size and scale may determine which
> > solution
> > > is best, but the inputs of cost and availability don't change. The
only
> > > difference is a business decision of whether the additional uptime is
an
> > > effective way to spend the company's money. Of course everyone has
> budget
> > > limits. Sometimes major availability enhancements take a while to get
> > > approved and implemented.
> > >
> > > No matter what the decision is, you are fine since management will now
> be
> > > aware of the risks and has active input in deciding how to mitigate
> them.
> > > This works the same no matter how big or small your business.
> > >
> > > Again, you can work on procedures, documentation, and training even
> > without
> > > a huge budget. I guarantee you that will improve system availability
> and
> > > recoverability.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geoff N. Hiten
> > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > > Senior Database Administrator
> > > Careerbuilder.com
> > >
> > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > > www.sqlpass.org
> > >
> > > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eoURYM1QEHA.2468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > Thanks for the options. I will look into Log Shipping & the SQL
> Resource
> > > > Kit.
> > > >
> > > > As far as business decision vs technology decision, easier said than
> > done
> > > > when working for a company of your size. When it comes to small
> > business,
> > > a
> > > > whole different set of rules come into play.
> > > >
> > > > thanks again!
> > > >
> > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Ot1BHW0QEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Without Enterprise Edition and its associated clustering feature,
> your
> > > > next
> > > > > best availability technologies are replication and log shipping.
I
> > > > strongly
> > > > > discourage replication as an availability option since many
database
> > > > > elements are not replicated. Log shipping is included with
> Enterprise
> > > > > Edition, but you can 'roll your own' without too much difficulty.
> The
> > > SQL
> > > > > Server 2000 Resource Kit includes a simple log shipping example
that
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > adapt for your site. This will allow you to keep the data fairly
> > > current
> > > > > with your production server, but will require a fair amount of
> manual
> > > > > intervention to 'go live'.
> > > > >
> > > > > My suggestion is to examine your disaster recovery policy now and
> > offer
> > > > > alternatives to your management based on expected cost and
expected
> > > system
> > > > > availability. SQL Clustering is one option and log shipping is
> > another.
> > > > > (You can combine them by log shipping to another site and really
be
> > > > > prepared.) Offer them a choice and show what the different levels
> of
> > > > > spending actually buy in terms of system availability. You may be
> > > > surprised
> > > > > what becomes affordable when the choice is presented as a business
> > > > decision,
> > > > > not a technology decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > No matter which technology path you choose, documentation and
> training
> > > > will
> > > > > be the keys to meeting your availability targets. You must have a
> > good
> > > > plan
> > > > > and the personnel to implement it. Otherwise the technology
doesn't
> > get
> > > > you
> > > > > squat.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Geoff N. Hiten
> > > > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > > > > Senior Database Administrator
> > > > > Careerbuilder.com
> > > > >
> > > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> > > > > www.sqlpass.org
> > > > >
> > > > > "RP" <rp@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:uxFMQTzQEHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Hi all, Firstly let me apologize if any of my questions sound
> > stupid.
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > a
> > > > > > newbie when it comes to SQL Server. We currently have 1 server
> > running
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > with a couple of databases collectively approaching 2GB. The
HDD's
> > are
> > > > > > configured on a RAID 5 and everything has been running OK. We
just
> > > > > recently
> > > > > > experienced downtime with one of our other mail servers and
there
> is
> > a
> > > > > > sudden focus on backup failover servers. Unfortunately we do not
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > > budget to invest in Windows Advanced Server and SQL Enterprise
for
> > > > > > clustering etc. It is my understanding that I can have a standby
> > cold
> > > > fail
> > > > > > over server with SQL installed that I can switch on, incase the
> > > primary
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > down. Is that true? If yes, what is the best way to set this up?
> Are
> > > > there
> > > > > > any best practices?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In our recent server failure, the server would not even bootup.
As
> a
> > > > > result
> > > > > > we could not even get access to the data on the hard drives. We