It might be better if you ask this question in an SQL Server newsgroup.
Also, read the SQL Server Books On Line (BOL) articles on Failover
Clusters.
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 <at> earthlink <decimal-point> net
Oakland, CA (USA)
omeropee@gmail.com wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Our company is an independent Voice applications solution provider with
> number clients using our suite. We have a CT application suite which is
> running with Application Server and SQL Server 7 / 2000 as DB Engines
> at the back end.
>
> The SQL server has two databases configured:
>
> Logging Database - Massive updates every second, the data grows
> rapidly,
>
> Configuration Database - Generally small-sized and updated
> occasionally.
>
> Now we want to have the reslience implemented on the server. We have to
> synchronize the two databases 'real-timely' and in 'efficient'
> manner, so that if Primary server or its Databases gets unavailable,
> the users are seamlessly switched over to the Secondry server that will
> have its own set of data updated and well synchronized.
>
> Typically, it can be explained as follows:
>
> 1. We will have 2 database servers A - Primary (acting as publisher)
> and B - Secondary (acting as subscriber). Our application will be
> initially connected to A.
>
> 2. When A becomes unavailable (for whatever reason), the application
> will fail-over to B.
>
> 3. All the users will be switched to server B and the updates are being
> done accordingly without being replicated on Server A temporarily.
>
> 4. When A is back on-line, A needs to be brought up-to-date with B
> automatically (In other words, I shouldn't have to manually export all
> the data from B to A ).
>
> Our requirements are:
>
> - The system should support Bi-directional Synchronization
> between both the servers for their set of databases (the logging and
> configuration).
>
> - There will be constant and heavy activity in Logging
> Database, thus if one server gets down the data should be logged and
> maintained as it is on second server and on fail-back no data-loss
> should occur with minimum latency time.
>
> - There could be a scenario when a server fails-over for a
> week's time, there will be constant logging each second! Once it
> fails-back the system should rapidly synchronize the data without
> noticeable delay among the two server database sets.
>
> - The system should also work fine if certain amount of
> records are purged over a time period.
>
> Our concern is, observing the above scenario, how any of your SQL
> server replication strategy can help us achieve the requirements.
>
>
> Thanks
> John
>[/color]
