I have been happy with the clustered servers I have been running. They
have failed over when they needed to.

Most importantly for my environment, they minimize downtime when we need
to restart the servers for Microsoft's security patches. There are users
in our building 7x24. When corporate mandates a patch, we have do not
have that much time to test and apply it. To patch a clustered machine,
we patch the passive node, reboot it then fail over to it. Then, apply
the patch to the former active node. Our nonclustered machines take
minutes to restart, whereas the clustered ones take only a few seconds.
With a lot of server components having their own BIOS, server restarts
seem to be taking longer and longer.

The single point of failure are the clustered disks. But, that risk can
be managed by the storage area network. There is still a risk, but it
will be small.


LHale wrote:
> I would like to pick the brains of anyone that is successfully running SQL
> in a Clustered environment. What were the hitches? Would you recommend
> doing this? Is the SQL2005 Mirroring option or logshipping a better
> option?
> As I stated, I just want opinions at this point. Some discussion has come
> up regarding this possibility and I wanted to have some dba input. My
> personal input is biased and I wanted to see how the rest of the DBA's out
> there felt.
> Thanks
> Lisa Hale
> SQL DBA
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
> Website : http://www.LazyDBA.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
>
>
> .
>
>

MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page