2005 Shared Nothing

I though 2005 was going to have a feature where you could face multiple
instances of a DB towards your customers with all the lock and transaction
bits accomplished in the background? The most common question I get about
Clustering is whether it is HA or really is a scalibility solution as well.
Avokia makes a piece that effectively accomplishes this.Are you referring to database snapshots?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:2C6CD6C9-2655-4E5F-8DD7-83B21DE43F12@.microsoft.com...
> I though 2005 was going to have a feature where you could face multiple
> instances of a DB towards your customers with all the lock and transaction
> bits accomplished in the background? The most common question I get about
> Clustering is whether it is HA or really is a scalibility solution as
well.
> Avokia makes a piece that effectively accomplishes this.|||Hi
Clustering is HA and no Windows Clustering implantation is intended for
scale out.
SQL server 2005 has never has a scale out feature in it's feature list.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:2C6CD6C9-2655-4E5F-8DD7-83B21DE43F12@.microsoft.com...
>I though 2005 was going to have a feature where you could face multiple
> instances of a DB towards your customers with all the lock and transaction
> bits accomplished in the background? The most common question I get about
> Clustering is whether it is HA or really is a scalibility solution as
> well.
> Avokia makes a piece that effectively accomplishes this.|||Database mirroring seems to be like what I thought I heard 2005 to have.
This would be more like having a separate server instance to improve
performance.
"Adam Machanic" wrote:

> Are you referring to database snapshots?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:2C6CD6C9-2655-4E5F-8DD7-83B21DE43F12@.microsoft.com...
> well.
>
>|||Database mirroring, with a snapshot running against the mirror gives you a
real-time read only copy of the data.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D22D9678-ACC0-4A67-B9B0-ECB89990694E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Database mirroring seems to be like what I thought I heard 2005 to have.
> This would be more like having a separate server instance to improve
> performance.
> "Adam Machanic" wrote:
>|||As Mike mentioned, database mirroring really doesn't accomplish that.
Sounds like a merge replication scenario to me...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D22D9678-ACC0-4A67-B9B0-ECB89990694E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Database mirroring seems to be like what I thought I heard 2005 to have.
> This would be more like having a separate server instance to improve
> performance.
> "Adam Machanic" wrote:
>
in[vbcol=seagreen]
multiple[vbcol=seagreen]
transaction[vbcol=seagreen]
about[vbcol=seagreen]