|
Home > Archive > MS SQL Server > February 2006 > SQL Server Failover/Reporting Server
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
SQL Server Failover/Reporting Server
|
|
|
| One of the drawbacks of SQL Server Log Shipping is that SQL Server must
either be in Single User mode or the Log Shipping process must kill all
user connections before restoring the logs. This limitation makes it
difficult or unrealistic to use the standby server as a reporting
server. Is anyone aware of a solution for this limitation of SQL Server
Log Shipping? Essentially, we are interested in a reporting server
(that allows many uninterrupted connections at the same time - all the
time) that acts as a failover server as well.
Unfortunately, our current system was built on SQL Server 2000 and we
have no immediate plans to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
| |
| Uri Dimant 2006-02-07, 3:23 am |
| > either be in Single User mode or the Log Shipping process must kill all
> user connections before restoring the logs.
Before or after? I did it after a log restoring to put the database into
single user mode
A purpose of the Log Shipping is to ensure if the source database is
failed/corrupted a standby database becames a source database. Did you look
at Reporting Services in the SQL Server.
"Hugh" <hugh_m@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:1139295890.645127.24630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> One of the drawbacks of SQL Server Log Shipping is that SQL Server must
> either be in Single User mode or the Log Shipping process must kill all
> user connections before restoring the logs. This limitation makes it
> difficult or unrealistic to use the standby server as a reporting
> server. Is anyone aware of a solution for this limitation of SQL Server
> Log Shipping? Essentially, we are interested in a reporting server
> (that allows many uninterrupted connections at the same time - all the
> time) that acts as a failover server as well.
>
> Unfortunately, our current system was built on SQL Server 2000 and we
> have no immediate plans to upgrade to SQL Server 2005.
>
|
|
|
|
|