Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm looking at transitioning from a dedicated hosting provide to Amazon's EC2 instances. The website is an asp/asp.net website with SQL Server 2008 as it's backend. It has zero redundancy as is besides the 24 hardware replacement we have in the contract.

My question is, transitioning to Amazon's EC2 instance would provide the same level, or lack of redundancy, but with the large outage a few months back I was wondering what my option would be to prevent any lengthily downtime by some feature of Amazon EC2 without setting up a full-time replication agent in another EC2 zone or center. The cost of the SQL instance alone is ~$800 minimum, so having two would throw me over the budget easily. The database size is 35gb so it's not to big, but also much larger then SQL Express can handle.

Thoughts?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

I'm not sure I see an actual question in your post. Redundancy doesn't intrinsically come cheaply, and the "advantage" of cloud services is that they're relatively immune from individual hardware failure, but as you notice, there are other sorts of failures that can strike.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm basically looking for a solution that provides some sort of redundancy between Amazon's EC2 data centers without paying for a full time sql server running replication. –  Josh Sep 29 '11 at 12:47
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.