Quantcast
Channel: SQL Server High Availability and Disaster Recovery forum
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4689

When to user Availability Group versus traditional Clustered SQL Server

$
0
0

Hi...

I'm trying to get my arms around when to use an SQL Server 2014 Availability Group. Here are the characteristics about my platform:

2 physical servers (Windows Server 2012 / SQL Server 2014)

Both servers connected to same LAN

External SAN storage connected DIRECTLY to each physical server via fibr3-channel. (No fibre-channel switch)

Database resides on SAN storage.

I've set up a failover cluster between the 2 physical servers.

I've created a high availability group with a Primary/Secondary and synchronization.

Both Primary/Secondary are green and show synchronized. The concern I have is that the Primary says Synchronizing (No Data Loss) and the Secondary says Not Synchronizing (Data Loss). When I use the Failover Wizard to failover, it tells me that I will have data loss on the Secondary.

So my questions are these, do you need more than one Secondary node to have an effective Availability Group? If I only plan to have the 2 physical servers, should I be setting up a traditional Clustered SQL Server installation.

I've used the traditional Clustered SQL Server in the past and used the Active/Passive licensing for the SQL Server software but the Always On Availability Group looked interesting to me, but NOT if it requires more than 2 physical servers and more than 2 SQL Instances (and licenses) to provide proper failover capability.

All input will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Brett


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4689

Trending Articles