Forum Moderators: open
Basically, we know that we can do load-balancing across multiple servers using RAID but is there a serious lagtime assocaited with grabbing a remote database at another server facility, for fail-safe operation if something happens to one server or another for any reason?
More specifically, we want to have the same dataset mirrored on at least 3 database sets on 3 different servers that are always updated and can talk to each other in the event one goes down, as an airplane engine can pick up the other one's extra load should the second fail.
We looked into a two-server database solution, but it was very complicated and didn't seem very reliable.
You might want to look into a RAID 5 configuration instead of multiple servers. 5 Redundant hard drives, two mirroring, two striping and one current active one. (or something like that - I can't remember the full configuration.)
I am still worried about the actual hardware on the server itself, for example, the mobo blows, then the hard drives being mirrored = doesn't matter because the server is dead. Also hackers, since the HD is on the same server, they are essentially linked, so same system, same OS.
So, I guess that mirroring databases is not something that is possible right now? I'm not worried at all about cost implications.
But if you're dealing with a lot of data, and a lot of changes to that data, your internet connection is going to be the bottle neck. Your best bet is to have a second hot DB server running in the same co-lo ready to go in case your primary fails. Run the backups to that server regularly and you will have at least a few 9's of uptime. Probably not 5-9's but who knows :)
Chip-