> Thanks Edwin,
>
> Is this also supported for SQL 2000 or just SQL 2005?

>
> If reporting really needed to scale and the reporting requirements for
some
> reports needed to be up to the minute but most of the reports could use
data
> that was a day old, then this seems like the following configuration would
> seem to give you the most bang for your buck, correct?
>
> TX Database - 2-Node Active/Passive
>
> Reporting Database Replicated - 2-Node Active/Passive - This would have
the
> entire TX Database replicated in real-time like we have today. Client
access
> to this database would be limited to the reports that needed to be
accurate
> to the minute.
>
> Reporting Database Manual - N-Node Active/Active/Active... - This would
have
> two volumes as discussed in the article, and the operational volume would
be
> swapped out with the newly built volume just after midnight with a newer
data
> set. Client access to this database would limited to the reports that
don't
> need to be up to the minute accurate. During the downtime, access to the
> Reporting Database Replicated cluster could be changed to allow all
reports
> to be run from it; given the fact that these changes would be done at
> midnight, the load on this servers shouldn't be very great so it should be
> able to handle the additional reports.

>
> "Edwin vMierlo" wrote:
>
> > The correct name is scalable shared databases, where multiple SQL 2005
> > servers are accessing a read-only volume.
> > there are many restrictions to this
> >
> > Please see ;
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;910378
> > for more info on this
> >
> > HTH,
> > _Edwin.
> >
> >
> > "Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message news:981C4446-DC47-43D3-B071-742BCEE767F3@microsoft.com...
> > > I currently have an active/passive cluster acting as our OLTP TX
database
> > > server that is replicating to another active/passive cluster acting as
a
> > > Reporting database server.
> > >
> > > I have heard that if the database is read-only (e.g. reporting server)
> > that
> > > it is possible to set the sql server application in an active/active
mode
> > and
> > > have requests be handled by both of the servers (e.g. shared access to
a
> > > single databse). This is what I want to do, but I don't think it is
> > possible
> > > since one node will be given access to the disk resources, correct?
> > >
> > > I guess the only way to really use active/active is to have two sql
server
> > > instances each with its own disk resources that are supporting two
> > > independent applications and then upon failure the non-failed node
handles
> > > both applications. This isn't really what I want to do because I want
to
> > > load-balance read-only requests to the same database across two
servers;
> > > which I am not able to do. Am I understanding this correctly?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >