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

Best High Availability with SQL Server 2012 Standard and 2 or 4 nodes

$
0
0

What would be the best way to achieve the best high availability in SQL Server 2012 Standard edition where connected clients/programs will not notice anything at all, or almost nothing, when a server goes down?

It involves the following setup:

2 physical servers, each server has a maximum of 4 Virtual Machines (Windows Server 2012 Standard)

VM 1 (same on both physical servers) - Domain controllers with Failover Clustering for Windows services.
VM 2 (same on both physical servers) - Exchange 2013 DAG/Client Access redundancy with HLB.
VM 3 (same on both physical servers) - SQL Server 2012 Standard - technology undecided
VM 4 (same on both physical servers) - undecided

At the moment i am looking at 2 options:


(1)

Use VM 3 on both physical servers for Failover Clustering of SQL Server 2012 (AlwaysON failover clustering), though this will only use 1 shared database if i am correct? So share problems means database problems (SAN might be implemented but not sure yet). Though clients shouldn't notice anything from the failover, and it only uses 2 nodes (maximum anyways for Standard edition). VM 4 does not get used in this case which makes it also cheaper.

Are there any downsides to this? 

(2)

Use VM3 and VM4 for Database mirroring combined with Failover clustering. 2 Clusters (VM3 in a cluster, vm4 in a cluster) and install SQL Server 2012 Express on the Exchange machine as a witness server, not sure if this has to be clustered as well on both machines though.

It's sort of like described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191309.aspx

6 clean nodes/VMs is unfortunately impossible, so the witness server will have to share it with either Exchange or a domain controller.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am i looking at this the right way or am i completely off? 
I don't really have a problem with using Database mirroring as it is the same principle as AlwaysOn Availability Groups. I could use that argument to make the transition to that technology easier when the next version of SQL comes out (The enterprise version that's required now is WAY too expensive).



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4689

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>