From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_06E9_01C5652F.79184870
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Failover too.  See =
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_7t9v.asp.

Rich
=20
  "Ellen K."  wrote in message =
news:hi2n91ls9oid6pk6ltj4oiue65m9f9do3d{at}4ax.com...
  Well, but isn't clustering really for load balancing?  My SQL Servers
  barely break a sweat during the day.  (Besides which SQL Server 2000
  requires Enterprise Edition for clustering, but can do replication =
with
  Standard... at a cost differential of about 4 to 1.)

  On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:08:56 -0700, "Rich"  wrote in message
  :

  >   You should though there is clustering software for this purpose =
that would probably be more appropriate.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >  "Ellen K."  wrote in message =
news:jmpk91ps7mqev59btj3aan8o3hh9is5boc{at}4ax.com...
  >  Do you think I could use this for hot failover?   I.e. have a =
standby
  >  SQL Server box with the boot partition cloned and full =
transactional
  >  replication of the database and if the production box fails just =
change
  >  the IP address of the clone?
  >
  >  On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:54:56 -0700, "Rich" 
wrote in message
  >  :
  >
  >  >   Yes and Windows 2000 too.  What probably has gotten better are =
applications that register to be notified of network configuration =
changes and respond so that they don't need to be restarted.  =
NotifyAddrChange and NotifyRouteChange, two such APIs, were introduced = in
Windows 2000.
  >  >
  >  >   I'm curious why George had to reboot unless he was running a =
third party network service that did not include support for address = changes.
  >  >
  >  >Rich
  >  >
  >  >  "Ellen K."  wrote
in message =
news:bpmi915js372v2p66g453g1ogsrlmvlieg{at}4ax.com...
  >  >  Does that also apply to Server 2003?  Because that would solve =
one
  >  >  important issue I have at work.
  >  >
  >  >  On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:56:59 -0400, Mike N. =

  >  >  wrote in message :
  >  >
  >  >  >On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:47:16 -0400, "Geo."
 =
wrote:
  >  >  >
  >  >  >>Ok so how about listing some of the features you think makes =
XP worth
  >  >  >>upgrading to?
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  To me, just being able to change the IP address without =
rebooting makes
  >  >  >it worthwhile.  Sometimes 2000 would be able to do this, but =
most of the
  >  >  >time I had to reboot.

------=_NextPart_000_06E9_01C5652F.79184870
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Failover
too.  See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_7t=
9v.asp">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_7t=
9v.asp.
 
Rich
 

  "Ellen K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:hi2n91ls9oi=
d6pk6ltj4oiue65m9f9do3d{at}4ax.com...Well,=20
  but isn't clustering really for load balancing?  My SQL =
Serversbarely=20
  break a sweat during the day.  (Besides which SQL Server =
2000requires=20
  Enterprise Edition for clustering, but can do replication =
withStandard...=20
  at a cost differential of about 4 to 1.)On Mon, 30 May 2005 =
00:08:56=20
  -0700, "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message<429abb1d{at}w3.nls.net>:&=">mailto:429abb1d{at}w3.nls.net">429abb1d{at}w3.nls.net>:&=
gt;  =20
  You should though there is clustering software for this purpose that =
would=20
  probably be more =
appropriate.>>Rich>> 
"Ellen=20
  K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:jmpk91ps7mq=
ev59btj3aan8o3hh9is5boc{at}4ax.com...> =20
  Do you think I could use this for hot failover?   I.e. have =
a=20
  standby>  SQL Server box with the boot partition cloned =
and full=20
  transactional>  replication of the database and if the =
production=20
  box fails just change>  the IP address of the=20
  clone?>>  On Sun, 29 May 2005
00:54:56 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message>  <42997474$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=">mailto:42997474$1{at}w3.nls.net">42997474$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=
gt;> =20
  >   Yes and Windows 2000 too.  What
probably has =
gotten=20
  better are applications that register to be notified of network =
configuration=20
  changes and respond so that they don't need to be restarted. =20
  NotifyAddrChange and NotifyRouteChange, two such APIs, were introduced =
in=20
  Windows 2000.> 
>>  >   I'm =
curious=20
  why George had to reboot unless he was running a third party network =
service=20
  that did not include support for address changes.> =20
  >> 
>Rich> 
>>  =
>  "Ellen=20
  K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:bpmi915js37=
2v2p66g453g1ogsrlmvlieg{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  Does that also apply to Server 2003?  Because that =
would solve=20
  one>  >  important issue I have at =
work.> =20
  >>  >  On Sat, 28 May
2005 12:56:59 -0400, Mike =
N.=20
  <mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>&g=">mailto:mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net">mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>&g=
t; =20
  >  wrote in message <al8h9113b4k3r8=">mailto:al8h9113b4k3r88n0tpv83t4gdqlo5f24m{at}4ax.com">al8h9113b4k3r8=
8n0tpv83t4gdqlo5f24m{at}4ax.com>:> =20
  >>  >  >On Fri,
27 May 2005 16:47:16 -0400, =
"Geo."=20
  <fake{at}barkdom.com>=20">mailto:fake{at}barkdom.com">fake{at}barkdom.com>=20
  wrote:>  > 
>>  >  =
>>Ok so=20
  how about listing some of the features you think makes XP =
worth> =20
  >  >>upgrading
to?>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >  To me, just being able to change
the IP address =
without=20
  rebooting makes>  >  >it
worthwhile.  =
Sometimes=20
  2000 would be able to do this, but most of the>  =
> =20
  >time I had to
reboot.

------=_NextPart_000_06E9_01C5652F.79184870--

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