Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Holydon
Starting Member
8 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-02-12 : 11:21:50
|
| Please, I am suppose to protect a database incase there is a crash so thatthe clients switches to the other backup server. what I have been doing istake regular backup and restore to the other. But the organisation wants anonline sychronisation of the database, so that when the main server fails.......no transaction will be lost and the clients can continue working as ifnothing happened..My question is..which is better....Mirroring or Mergereplication ? |
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
Posted - 2009-02-12 : 11:44:49
|
| Replication is not a DR solution. Mirroring or Clustering is what you should be looking at for a SQL based solution. There are SAN based DR options available like SAN Replication.Dinakar Nethi************************Life is short. Enjoy it.************************http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/ |
 |
|
|
sodeep
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7174 Posts |
Posted - 2009-02-12 : 11:44:51
|
| Database Mirroring or Clustering. Merge replication is just warm-standy solution. |
|
|
|
PingTheServer
Starting Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 2009-02-12 : 12:18:02
|
| it sounds like you want Database Mirroring with a witness, or clustering.Clustering is expensive and difficult to set up, but probably better in the end if your business requires it.Mirroring just requires 2 or 3 similar machines and is much easier to set up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIrroring or Merge Replication