Mythbusting: SQL Server isn’t reliable

I started this series of posts talking about scalability and now I’ll talk about reliability. This is another IT term that might have different meanings to different people. For the sake of this post, I’ll assume that reliability means that the server is up and running when you want it to be.

99.999% uptime good enough? That translates to about 5 minutes downtime a year!

We have case studies of SQL Server deployed in a high-availability environment so that it will be up when it’s needed. Fujifilm and Nasdaq Stock Market are two examples.

There’s also barbox, who have a website for online trading. The company’s business has grown rapidly and the website updates every week. The whole environment needs to be up and running constantly or they lose business. Their website is the definition of business critical to barbox. And it’s built on a SQL Server environment.

So there are companies putting business critical applications on a SQL Server infrastructure and experiencing uptime on a five 9s level. Sounds reliable to me.

Myth: busted!

Comments (3)

  1. Jessica Meats says:

    The case study was posted on the Microsoft site because the customer was happy with the solution and wanted to go on record to say so. Their requirements were for a 99.999% uptime solution, as stated in the case study. After the deployment, they agreed to have the case study written about the solution.

    The quote wouldn't be in the case study without the customer agreeing that it should be included. Watanabe has gone on record saying that SQL gave them the reliability they needed.

  2. sqluptime says:

    This is rediculous to believe Fuji has 99.999% uptime with SQL 2005.  I want the proof from MSFT, not a misleading customer quote.

  3. sqluptime says:

    Hi Jessica:  Yes I saw Watanabe -san's quote. It met his needs and that's great but no one should be believe that SQL (2005 no less) is "available 99.999% of the time".

Skip to main content