What would you prefer in this case?
Hi!
I have a customer that wishes to run a rather big web-based system, hosted by my company. The main criteria for this project is that is should always be available, rather than optimized for speed.
The project requires Windows Server 2003 along with SQL Server 2005. I have thought about two different ways to achieve this with two identical servers and two per-processor licenses of SQL Server 2005. The number of simultaneous users will range from 5 to 50 000 with both small data inserts and complex calculations.
Way 1: Use one of the servers only in case of emergency, if the other (primary) server for any reason should fail. As I planned for dual processors, the initial idea would be the two per-processor licenses installed on each server, as I read that separate licenses was not needed for failover purposes.
Way 2: In some way load balance the two servers with a copy of SQL Server running on only one of processors on each server, sharing the same databases, so that if one server fails, the system will continue to run on the other. With this method, no hardware would be in waste. Although SQL Server will then only run on one processor.
As I haven't encountered this dilemma before, I wonder if there is one method preferred over another, maybe not even any of my ways?
To sum it all up in one question:
What would be the most effective and stable solution with two servers, two processors each, and two copies of SQL Server?
Best regards,
Daniel Forslund
