MECM High Availability SQL requirements

JL 6 Reputation points

Hey Guys,

We are looking into the enabling HA for our site server in SCCM (MECM). Can I double confirm that if we are use SQL Always On, we need 2 x SQL Enterprise licenses as per this article?

1 license to upgrade the Std to Ent on the active site server + 1 Ent license on the new passive site server. This is a huge cost just to have SQL Always On as licensing is $$$. Does this mean we need to migrate the database to a SQL cluster instead if available? Or is there any other alternative?

I understand from a standalone site point of view that the site database should on the same box as the site server which is best practice from multiple MVPs - but does this also apply for HA?

Thanks in advance.

Microsoft Configuration Manager
0 comments No comments
{count} vote

2 answers

Sort by: Most helpful
  1. Sherry Kissinger 3,966 Reputation points

    As with anything, take my opinion as what it is... an opinion based on 'what we do'. We do have HA with CM and SQL, where the Site Database and the Primary Site (the inboxes location) are on the same server(s) (two servers). All of the other roles are on other servers, specifically the ones which are for client communications / IIS (FSP, DP, MP, SUP...)

    That works for us... but we do keep a very tight rein on what teams and individuals have access to SQL. As you know, SQL for CM sometimes doesn't want to be managed the same as "other sql databases", so if you have DBAs that want to manage your SQL, you might have political reasons to have SQL be elsewhere than on the box as the Site Server components. Of course that is supported and works fine... as long as there is excellent connectivity between the Site Component server and the SQL db... and your DBAs are well-versed in the quirks of CM regarding SQL, so they don't do something like "make it just like every other database..." and break it.

    1 person found this answer helpful.

  2. JL 6 Reputation points

    Anyone else in the same situation as me or SherryKissinger-ECM ?


    0 comments No comments