@dustinb3403 said in Airparrot open source alternatives:

@scottalanmiller said in Airparrot open source alternatives:

@dustinb3403 said in Airparrot open source alternatives:

@scottalanmiller said in Airparrot open source alternatives:

https://obsproject.com/

Not the same thing as its not an AirPlay (AirParrot) solution, but is a broadcasting solution to a stream or file.

I looked at AirParrot and thought that it was a broadcasting solution. What do you see it as doing?

Stream from a laptop (windows or mac) to Chromecast or AppleTV connected to a TV for screen mirroring.

I thought that that was what that did.

@r3dpand4 said in Configuring Multi-Resilient Volume with Storage Spaces:

Should be noted that any server running 1709 cannot be added to S2D pools as it stands currently since it's not considered production ready....

Correct. S2D is gone from non-GA WS2016.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/server-1709-relnotes

Storage Spaces Direct

Storage Spaces Direct is not included in Windows Server, version 1709. If you call Enable-ClusterStorageSpacesDirect or its alias Enable-ClusterS2D, on a server running Windows Server, version 1709, you will receive an error with the message "The requested operation is not supported". It is also not supported to introduce servers running Windows Server, version 1709 into a Windows Server 2016 Storage Spaces Direct deployment.

@scottalanmiller said in SQL mirroring advise:

@Ambarishrh said in SQL mirroring advise:

@scottalanmiller said in SQL mirroring advise:

@Ambarishrh said in SQL mirroring advise:

@scottalanmiller said in SQL mirroring advise:

@Ambarishrh said in SQL mirroring advise:

@Dashrender said in SQL mirroring advise:

Are the two SQL servers sitting side by side? If not, shared storage and low latency for it's use would be super expensive.

Though I do wonder how their DR plan works if there isn't a cluster for the DB, what purpose does the second server serve? Warm spare?

Yes the servers are side by side, basically just sits there, and when a new site is created on SP side, run the script which mirrors the new DB created on server 1 to server 2. Eventually they were planning to introduce the witness server once our testing is complete and then enable auto failover. The downside here is that someone need to manually run the script for db mirroring of new databases

So the big thing here is that the databases are not mirrored, just the framework (schema) is at creation time. Very different from mirroring or clustering at that aspect level.

Yes, we've told them this won't work and asked them to look at a clustered setup. Since the licenses are already in place and is SQL standard no option for Always-On. I want to know what would be the drawbacks for the clustered setup, as for sure there are some more advantages on Always-ON compared to the clustered setup.

Won't work... for what? What's the end goal?

Won't work: Current stage its 2 separate DB servers and mirroring needs to be done by executing a script whenever there is a new db is created by SP.

End Goal: A fully automated failover setup giving high availability for the SharePoint solution

What they are doing is unrelated to their end goal. How does mirroring database creation help with failover. There isn't even a first step in preparing for a failover here. What is going on is totally something different.

Exactly what i was asking earlier.