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.