From: Ellen K. 

I guess that is an apology, so I have to forgive you.

You are smart enough to read the post to fully understand the requirements
that need to be met, rather than immediately pole-vaulting to the
conclusion that Microsoft is the problem.

For the record:
1.  I am in charge of the SQL Server databases, not any other servers.

2.  Microsoft has server clustering.  SQL Server clustering requires
Microsoft server clustering.  Clustering doesn't meet the requirements
because the clustered machines share a disk array, if the disk array is in
the location where the disaster occurs I'm still toast.  Distance
clustering, which Microsoft also supports, doesn't solve this.

3.  Replication might meet the requirements if I can figure out how to
     A.  quickly transform the erstwhile Subscriber into a standalone
database;
     B.  get the user apps to point at the erstwhile Subscriber within a
reasonable timeframe;
     C.  get back to the status quo ante (= restore or re-create the
Publisher from the former Subscriber) after the smoke clears.

4.  Log shipping would be even better than replication because 3 A and C
are handled by system stored procedures, but 3B would still have to be
solved (although I think that's the least of it given the new setup with
the ESB), AND there is a BIG additional wrinkle which is that one of the
databases holds BLOB data... AFAIK BLOB data are stored on their own pages,
the BLOB field only holds a pointer to the location of the actual data, and
only the pointer gets written to the log.  So unless log shipping actually
reads MORE than the log, I have a problem.  Therefore, to use log shipping
I would need to come up with a way to deal with the BLOB data.   I am going
to post a question on the SQL Server newsgroup
to see if anyone knows for sure what happens to BLOB data when log shipping is used.

Now, if you have any suggestions that meet the requirements, I'm all ears.   :)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:16:52 -0400, Mike '/m'  wrote
in message :

>
>I was only commenting upon the narrow-mindedness of Microsoft solutions
>and the OS's they run on.
>
>Didn't mean to get your dander up.
>
> /m
>
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 19:00:07 -0700, Ellen K. 
>wrote:
>
>>Oh please.
>>
>>Why should my company invest megabucks in operating systems for which we
>>have no knowledgable resources?   Just because you hate Microsoft?
>>What makes you think the other, non-Microsoft, pieces of our new setup
>>run on that?
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:47:02 -0400, Mike '/m'
 wrote in
>>message :
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:21:37 -0700, Ellen K.

>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>my *SQL SERVER DATABASES*, so solutions requiring other than Windows
>>>> operating systems aren't really solutions.
>>>
>>>Such is often the problem with Microsoft "solutions"....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5