Recently Microsoft released Technical Preview 4 for Configuration Manager (1601). Per TechNet, "Configuration Manager now supports using a SQL Server AlwaysOn availability groups to host the site database. When you install a new site, you can direct setup to use the availability group instead of a normal instance of SQL Server."
They then note "Successful configuration and use of availability groups requires you to be comfortable with configuring SQL Server availability groups, and relies on documentation and procedures provided in the SQL Server documentation library."
Currently, the best practice for creating fault tolerance and to avoid a single point of failure for the Configuration Manager Site Database is to install SQL replicas at each management point. I've watched several overview videos (from 2013) to get a better understanding of how AlwaysOn works.
In the DBA community, is AlwaysOn a better solution to providing fault tolerance and avoiding a single point of failure over SQL replicas?
Full discloser: I'm learning Configuration Manager and have very basic knowledge of SQL Server so any advice you have or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Best Answer
Availability Groups have rapidly become Microsoft's key HA strategy. They are slightly easier to setup and maintain than SQL Server Failover Clustering but provide slightly different benefits and drawbacks. FCIs are purely for SQL Instance level HA solutions whereas Availability Groups provide HA at the Availability Group (group of databases) level.
They are not without their faults or restrictions but their simplicity, flexibility and integration with Azure make them compelling to use for SQL Server, SharePoint and Systems Center HA (where supported).