P2P reindexing

I was looking at setting up multiple SQL Server 2005 Standard edition
servers using Peer-to-Peer Replication with the goal being able to
reindex one server at a time so as not to have any downtime (via locked
tables). Would this work?
Also, I know log-shipping to a standby server only requires 1 CPU
license which is attractive as CPU licenses are pricey. Still, if I
use P2P only for this reindex purpose (including three nodes for
voting) with only one server being used by customers/users, is a 1 CPU
license good enough?
Thanks!
MichaelI can't seem to find an answer anywhere for these questions:
Can I run ALTER INDEX REBUILD seperately between a live SQL 2005 server
and the hot-standby server? This way, if the live table is locked
during this operation, the hot-standby server would take over the CRUD
statements.
Is it allowed to have a single CPU license for two SQL 2005 server if
one is a hot-standby-only server and the standby-only server is only
used for failover purposes. Note that when tables are locked during
ALTER INDEX REBUILD, I assume the failover would kick in. Is that
possible?
The goal is to have no downtime for executing ALTER INDEX REBUILD.
Thank you,
Michael

P2P reindexing

I was looking at setting up multiple SQL Server 2005 Standard edition
servers using Peer-to-Peer Replication with the goal being able to
reindex one server at a time so as not to have any downtime (via locked
tables). Would this work?
Also, I know log-shipping to a standby server only requires 1 CPU
license which is attractive as CPU licenses are pricey. Still, if I
use P2P only for this reindex purpose (including three nodes for
voting) with only one server being used by customers/users, is a 1 CPU
license good enough?
Thanks!
MichaelI can't seem to find an answer anywhere for these questions:
Can I run ALTER INDEX REBUILD seperately between a live SQL 2005 server
and the hot-standby server? This way, if the live table is locked
during this operation, the hot-standby server would take over the CRUD
statements.
Is it allowed to have a single CPU license for two SQL 2005 server if
one is a hot-standby-only server and the standby-only server is only
used for failover purposes. Note that when tables are locked during
ALTER INDEX REBUILD, I assume the failover would kick in. Is that
possible?
The goal is to have no downtime for executing ALTER INDEX REBUILD.
Thank you,
Michael

P2P reindexing

I was looking at setting up multiple SQL Server 2005 Standard edition
servers using Peer-to-Peer Replication with the goal being able to
reindex one server at a time so as not to have any downtime (via locked
tables). Would this work?
Also, I know log-shipping to a standby server only requires 1 CPU
license which is attractive as CPU licenses are pricey. Still, if I
use P2P only for this reindex purpose (including three nodes for
voting) with only one server being used by customers/users, is a 1 CPU
license good enough?
Thanks!
MichaelI can't seem to find an answer anywhere for these questions:
Can I run ALTER INDEX REBUILD seperately between a live SQL 2005 server
and the hot-standby server? This way, if the live table is locked
during this operation, the hot-standby server would take over the CRUD
statements.
Is it allowed to have a single CPU license for two SQL 2005 server if
one is a hot-standby-only server and the standby-only server is only
used for failover purposes. Note that when tables are locked during
ALTER INDEX REBUILD, I assume the failover would kick in. Is that
possible?
The goal is to have no downtime for executing ALTER INDEX REBUILD.
Thank you,
Michael

P/T question

I have a perfmon output as:
"(Eastern Standard Time)","Memory\Pages/sec","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Target Server Memory(KB)","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Total Server Memory (KB)"
"11/18/2004 10:30:04.750","692.29290389658956","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:19.750","57.035332875362883","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:34.750","50.946407096710089","6686752","6686752"
"11/18/2004 10:30:49.750","45.985057453103487","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:31:04.750","80.718985188776941","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:31:19.765","51.419713435012362","6686688","6686688"
"11/18/2004 10:31:34.765","83.316956075479524","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:31:49.765","86.4656131714503","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:04.765","184.19541457981779","6687008","6687008"
"11/18/2004 10:32:19.765","1594.8601288134912","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:34.765","66.843390396403805","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:49.765","66.840494677987792","6686928","6686928"
"11/18/2004 10:33:04.765","118.8274008488409","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:19.765","317.40745114920139","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:34.765","102.44640018841849","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:49.765","144.69523847001818","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:04.765","85.31078069975311","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:19.765","201.69105891920668","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:34.765","160.50180640532426","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:49.765","82.745816941897289","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:04.765","77.598868378704793","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:19.765","144.36181802848549","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:34.765","115.436326945804","6687200","6687200"
"11/18/2004 10:35:49.765","220.79121078389826","6687200","6687200"

Does this mean that if I add more memory to the box and allocate it to SQL Server, it will be beneficial?

ThanksThese are very alarming numbers. How much memory DO you have?|||We have 8GB on the box and 6GB (approx.) allocated to SQL Server. This is a very intensive i/o and oltp application.