As of SQL 2012, there is an architecture that allows for 2 active databases with only one instance. This is called an 'Always On, High Availability group for SQL' which is a situation where we have 1 instance name and two nodes across geographic locations. (FCI+AG solution). . There are some caveats and some discussion to be had… but it is do-able.

I3/Gen has not validated it yet, and has no plans currently to do so. They don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. They just haven't tested or certified it.

Is anyone else in the community using this architecture SQL FCI+AG always on)?  Or are you using a different architecture that can switch to a DR site (assuming the primary site is wiped out) without having to down the server and run setup assistant and repoint the backup server to the new/backup database?
We have a primary server in one city and the backup in anothr city (DR site). 

Thanks,

------------------------------
Jason Koch
Atos
------------------------------

Jason,

The "Always On" architecture offers the ultimate level of redundancy in SQL and as long as PureConnect has a single DB instance to connect to, per datasource, all is well.

Please remember to fully consider what "DR" really means and really test it. We typically do not consider any production Switchover member core server a DR server or site. It's difficult to truly isolate a Switchover member server site and have it be truly self contained.

Thanks,
Chris

------------------------------
Chris Mayo
Director, Technical Services
Altivon
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 09-14-2018 09:18
From: Jason Koch
Subject: SQL database redundancy Always On (FCI+AG)?

As of SQL 2012, there is an architecture that allows for 2 active databases with only one instance. This is called an 'Always On, High Availability group for SQL' which is a situation where we have 1 instance name and two nodes across geographic locations. (FCI+AG solution). . There are some caveats and some discussion to be had… but it is do-able.

I3/Gen has not validated it yet, and has no plans currently to do so. They don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. They just haven't tested or certified it.

Is anyone else in the community using this architecture SQL FCI+AG always on)?  Or are you using a different architecture that can switch to a DR site (assuming the primary site is wiped out) without having to down the server and run setup assistant and repoint the backup server to the new/backup database?
We have a primary server in one city and the backup in anothr city (DR site).

Thanks,

------------------------------
Jason Koch
Atos
------------------------------