We have Always On Availability Group settings, and we have a preferred DB that needs to be in primary all the time even after it reboots.   Once a month or so, these 2 servers DB1 and DB2 reboot for upgrade/updates, however whichever come back online first becomes the primary with HA on, but we prefer to always set DB1 as primary when it comes back online no matter what.  Are there any configs for this, or should we create a trigger?   Thank you
124032
In my environment, I have Db01 and Db02 setup with SQL 2012 AlwaysOn. Db01 is the preferred master as that is where all of the backup jobs reside. Typically, the only time that Db01 is unavailable is during maintenance period of installing Windows Update.   Is there a way to always have Db01 be the primary when it is a member of the cluster? Currently, when Db01 rejoins the cluster after a reboot, it is marked as the secondary, since Db02 has become the primary. I would like to see Db01 join the cluster and then automatically (or via a command executed on startup) be designated primary.  Db01 and Db02 are both set to SYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT and Automatic Failover Mode
13222
I feel that my shop has a hole because we don't have a solid process in place for versioning our database schema changes. We do a lot of backups so we're more or less covered, but it's bad practice to rely on your last line of defense in this way.   Surprisingly, this seems to be a common thread. Many shops I have spoken to ignore this issue because their databases don't change often, and they basically just try to be meticulous.  However, I know how that story goes. It's only a matter of time before things line up just wrong and something goes missing.   Are there any best practices for this? What are some strategies that have worked for you?
69435
Help! My master database is corrupt, I can't even bring the SQL instance online! What are my options to get my server back up?   I do have a backup of master, but the  asks me to start the instance in single-user mode, which I can't do!  (Note: I'm leaving this question unspecified as to SQL version, so as to be a more widely-applicable reference. There are some similar questions on DBA.SE, but none that involve the server unable to start.)
21459
So my setup:   Services are shared between all hosts (CPU/RAM/Disk/Services). Hosts are split into two main groups: "Production" and "Development". We have two contact groups: "Production" and "Development".   Lets say my development SQL server runs low on RAM, I want it to only alert those in  "Development" contact group (this service is of course assigned to a host in the "Development" host group, using the shared RAM monitoring service).  I'm pretty much stumped on this... I can't configure it at the service level (they're shared there), and I can't seem to get escalations to do it for me either...   Do I need to use service groups along with escalations and bite the bullet on building that list? Or am I missing something stupidly simple?  I'm using Centreon for configuration if that helps.
48118
I'd love to be able to hibernate one Windows instance, boot into another, then switch back to the first instance and have it resume my hibernated state.  Is there some sort of hack or software product that would enable that, maybe by renaming the hibernation files based on the the instance I'm booting to?  I understand the technical issues with why it's not supported - I could make changes to the filesystem while I'm running instance two that would cause my hibernated state in instance one, but I'm a big boy and don't need to be protected from myself.
72220
I have 2 domain controllers on a non-Internet connected network running Windows Server 2008 R2. They running RAID 5 on a 8 Hard Drive server. Sometime last week the Boot Sector became corrupt on DC1 and I was unable to recover the server. I am not going to have to rebuild the server. I have been reading about the changes from Server 2003 to Server 2008. DC1 was the main domain controller and now that it won't but it is all falling to DC2. I know that in previous versions of Windows Server you had to make on the primary and one the secondary. Since DC2 does not see DC1 anymore is there anything I need to do to DC2 as it is now the one in control? I am thinking some kind of meta data clean up but I can't find any hard information on what procedure to do. I understand as of Server 2008 domain controllers are on an equal footing and provide replication to each other so they should be the same correct?
35796
I have a database that is set to the 'Full' recovery model, and I'm creating a maintenance plan to backup the Transaction Log every 15 minutes. A full backup is then taken once every 24 hours.  I was wondering: will the maintenance plan for the transaction logs create a lot of different files every 15 minutes, or will it by default append to the same file for 24 hours?  Also: what is preferred? I couldn't find anything on this subject (or maybe I was Googling the wrong words).  Thanks for any pointers anyone can give me.  EDIT: I also see that the checkmark "Verify backup integrity" is OFF by default. Is there a risk with turning it on? It seems to be that it should be on by default, so is there a reason for not using this?
117363
MySQL has a lot of different highly available solutions, I would like to know what are the differences between all the current implementations, here are the implementations that look currently up to date :   MySQL Group Replication (by Oracle) MySQL NDB Cluster (by Oracle) Galera Cluster (by Galera) XtraDB Cluster (by Percona) MySQL Fabric Cluster (by Oracle) MySQL Orchestrator (by Github)   What would be the recommended options (or any others) for a high available setup with automatic failover ? (For something equivalent of the SQL Server DB Mirroring with synchronous replication)
21226
I've noticed an odd behavior on a 2-server HA cluster and I was hoping someone could confirm my suspicion, or maybe offer some other explanation... Here is my setup:   A 2-server SQL 2012 SP1 installation SQL AlwaysOn HA has been enabled for a few databases CPUs are 2.4GHz, 4 cores RAM is 34 GB (it is an AWS instance, hence the odd number) Resource utilization is relatively low - each server has 14+ GB memory free, and SQL is not capped on how much memory to use Disk access time is fine - rarely going over 15ms/Read or Write Databases are not big - 1 GB, 1.5 GB, 7.5 GB SQL server process is using 16 GB Private Bytes, 15 GB Working Set   Overall, no resource issues are noted. Now for the odd part. SQL is not restarted (process has been running for almost 6 months) but it seems that every ~50 days, the Page Life Expectancy counter drops to (almost) 0. Up until that point it climbs steadily, no drops. Here is a perf graph:    When I look at the counter data (I don't have the exact number, just an hourly aggregation) it seems the PLE counter value reached about 4,295,000 sec (roughly 50 days) every time (at least every time I have data for).   My crazy theory is that the PLE number is held as milliseconds as an unsigned long int (which has a limit of 4,294,967,295) and at 49.71 days it resets, either by design, or because of a bug. This would explain the behavior of the two servers and the identical pattern they have. Or it could be something totally different and I am just not making any sense. :)  Has anyone seen anything like that, or can explain this behavior?  P.S. I saw  post, but my case seems slightly different.  P.P.S. This is a repost - I originally posted it , but was advised the audience here is more appropriate.  Thanks!
119520
I'd just like to know if there is any way to query when the AG group failed over.  eg - this is the Primary Replica now, but I'm pretty sure it was the secondary yesterday?  How can i find when the failover took place    is there something specific in the Logs I should be looking for, or is there a tsql script to use?
102523
Problem definition  Our database server needs to be transferred to an other datacenter. It runs on Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Enterprise (64-bit) and contains two databases of about 2TB and 1TB.  Having little to no downtime for this would be ideal.  Workload  Those databases are used for a .NET website and are constantly getting updated.   Having it not available over the weekend would be acceptable though. The currently in use DB would remain the only one in use until the switch over to the new one.  That switch would ideally be made just by changing DNS entries to point to the new DB server while making sure the DB is not being updated.  Also, time taken by this operation does not really matter as long as the switch from one server to the other (downtime) is kept low.  Approaches considered   Backup and restore  This has been done in the past but involved a high downtime even though it was done through an internal network, so more efficiently than through Internet Log shipping  As far as I understand, this approach would minimize downtime by configuring a master/slave and transferring  an exact copy of the master DB to its slave being read only. As mentioned above, no access to the slave would be necessary and we just need a way to have a replica of the master DB without data corruption.   It also seems to be quite efficient in terms of resources utilization and wouldn't impact to much the master performance.   I might be wrong about this approach so feel free to correct me. Database mirroring  I'm not too aware of that approach but it seems like a valid option. No need to have real time sync and performance of the master is quite important so asynchronous would be the way to go if this approach were to be chosen. Other options?  That server runs directly on bare metal hardware so lower level solutions are unfortunately not an option. Maybe there is a better way to get this done?   Constraints  As described, those databases are quite big to the point they are hard to maintain but that's an other problem.  The versions of SQL Server will be the same (Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Enterprise 64-bit).  It will have to be transferred over network between two datacenters so most probably over Internet. Having disks sent from one site to the other for an initial sync is unfortunately not an option. Having some sort of security for the transfer would be ideal but we will do the best of this situation.  That should give a quite good overview of our needs for this task and hopefully some of you had to face that situation before.
23910
The  specifies the options of / to be defaults,noatime, but on my installation the default fstab is created with the options of rw,relatime. The  covers the atime issues. What I am curious about is the defaults option. The man page for mount says:  defaults Use the default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, nouser, and async. Note that the real set of all default mount options depends on kernel and filesystem type.  See the beginning of this section for more details.  Are the default options used only if the defaults option is provided or are they used in all cases? Do I need defaults in my fstab?
64066
I've been working on setting up clustered environment with a two new DTC roles, DTC1 and DTC2. I set up DTC1 which allows both clustered VM's and SQL Server Instances to function correctly. However, when I disable DTC1, DTC2 will remain online but no DTC transactions will work. I'm actually going through this issue with a Microsoft tech right now (without much luck). Both DTC services are set up with similar configurations. Anyone here have an idea as to what might be going on?  Here's my setup:   One clustered environment Two DTC Roles Two Separate ISCSI disks, one for each role Two VM's (same configuration) Two SQL Server Instances, on on each VM   Networking configuration is allowed, everything looks to be set up properly.
109714
Currently we use standard maintenance plans for backups on the SQL Server 2005/2008/2008R2/2012 servers in our environment, and the "Verify backup integrity" box has always been checked.  Some of the backups run very long, so I've recommended turning off that option, but management needs me to document the impact and risks of this change.  I understand the use and history of this option, it just seems unnecessary to me to double the time for the backup job when (in my opinion), any error that is likely to occur would occur during the backup step, not during the verify.  Am I wrong? Is it minimal risk to turn this off, if I am backing up to disk and not to streaming tape or something? (We back up over the network to an EMC DD-800 backup appliance, if that is relevant.)  Is there any official MS recommendations for when it is safe to turn this off?   Do you run "verify" on every backup in your environment? Do you spot-check them?  EDIT: To clarify, when you check "verify backup integrity" in the maintenance plan, SQL will do a full RESTORE VERIFYONLY on each database immediately after each backup. This is just as data/IO intensive as the original backup, and (basically) doubles the overall time of the backup job. This is not the same as enabling the "checksum" option on backup (which can't be done in the wizard, as far as I know).
45461
Installed  by using install script and something crashed. Now I'm only member of my own group and lp.  Which are the default groups for users in for example Ubuntu 12.10? ?  Out of curiosity, is there some place where this information is logged? For example, some log file showing which groups my user was on previous boot? Is this information, (which groups are default), documented somewhere?
15666
This is a  about Active Directory DNS Settings. Related:     Assuming an environment with multiple domain controllers (assume that they all run DNS as well):  in what order should the DNS servers be listed in the network adapters for each domain controller? Should 127.0.0.1 be used as the primary DNS server for each domain controller? Does it make any difference, if so what versions are affected and how?
107732
Batch jobs error emails report:      The transaction log for database 'WebDB' is full.   No, it isn't. Its 90% free. The transaction log backups run normally. My hardware guy tells me the hardware is running perfectly, with plenty of space. SQL Server 2008 SP3, but not R2.  I'm a developer, we no longer have a DBA. So it falls to me to try and fix this.