Timeline for How to keep a live backup of an SQL server in sync?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:00 | vote | accept | Pieter B | ||
| Mar 26, 2015 at 20:58 | comment | added | Ali Razeghi - AWS | Mirroring is still an option in SQL 2014 which was just released and mirroring is VERY straight forward to setup and fast. I'd say you're really safe going with mirroring right now until you can fully test and go with a replication method you really like. You might even be able to do read only availability groups in the near future if the price comes down. Replication is way more involved than mirroring. | |
| Mar 26, 2015 at 15:42 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:44 | comment | added | benjamin moskovits | The cluster VS mirroring is dependent on what knowledge your data center has in setting up clusters , and other factors and can approach religious battles in intensity. They are both fine and appropriate solutions to what you need. | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:41 | comment | added | benjamin moskovits | You can look at clustering. This is very reliable and using the high availability features of SQL Server 2012 and on can be off site (it used to require basically the clustered machines be in the same data center but not any more.). Clustering is done at the instance level, and is by a very large factor more complicated then mirroring, but its a very reliable way to mirror instances. Failover is automatic which only one mirroring type is. I would go with mirroring and then move to clustering when required by SQL Server. | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:19 | comment | added | Pieter B | Yes we have looked at mirroring but the "This feature will be removed in a future version of Microsoft SQL Server" has put us off. | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:15 | history | answered | benjamin moskovits | CC BY-SA 3.0 |