| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : Clustered MegaServers
I assume this term is used for clustering all your Federated Server members. - Does each node have a SQL Instance installed? If yes, I assume 1 virtual instance of sql is treated as the main, and all federation members are configured as linked servers. - When I create my partitioned views, are the servers connected via linked servers? Remote servers? - When issuing a select, how do I use the (nolock) or read-uncommitted isolation level across linked servers? I don't want to add nolock to a view that is updateable. How to deal with this? I definitely do not want my select blocking dml... - Any tips or tricks or gotchas with this architecture? - I haven't been able to find definitive documentation on this architecture, anyone know of some good links or books? Thanks in advance, ChrisB
Looks like the technology you are looking for is linked servers, not clustered servers. Clustered servers is another technology to achieve high availability. For example, a popular cluster configuration has 2 servers, one active and one passive, but SQL Server is only running on the active node. The passive is doing nothing, just waiting to automatically replace the active node in case this has a problem. Documentation for both technologies are on the Books Online. Regards, Ben Nevarez [quoted text, click to view] "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:48E011E5-DAD0-48A0-B059-2DBFAA2975C7@microsoft.com... > > I assume this term is used for clustering all your Federated Server > members. > > - Does each node have a SQL Instance installed? If yes, I assume 1 virtual > instance of sql is treated as the main, and all federation members are > configured as linked servers. > - When I create my partitioned views, are the servers connected via linked > servers? Remote servers? > - When issuing a select, how do I use the (nolock) or read-uncommitted > isolation level across linked servers? I don't want to add nolock to a > view > that is updateable. How to deal with this? I definitely do not want my > select > blocking dml... > - Any tips or tricks or gotchas with this architecture? > - I haven't been able to find definitive documentation on this > architecture, > anyone know of some good links or books? > > Thanks in advance, > ChrisB >
Ben - perhaps you should take a look at this article??? http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/plan/ssmsam.mspx#EIAA Excerpt: A cluster of SQL Server SMP nodes can do even more. In one benchmark, HP demonstrated a 32-node cluster of 8-way Xeon processors supporting more than 575,000 concurrent users, and a 53-terabyte database processed 709,220 Transaction Processing Council Benchmark C (TPC-C) transactions per minute (tpmC), ... Chris [quoted text, click to view] "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> > Looks like the technology you are looking for is linked servers, not > clustered servers. Clustered servers is another technology to achieve high > availability. For example, a popular cluster configuration has 2 servers, > one active and one passive, but SQL Server is only running on the active > node. The passive is doing nothing, just waiting to automatically replace > the active node in case this has a problem. > > Documentation for both technologies are on the Books Online. > > Regards, > > Ben Nevarez > > > > > "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:48E011E5-DAD0-48A0-B059-2DBFAA2975C7@microsoft.com... > > > > I assume this term is used for clustering all your Federated Server > > members. > > > > - Does each node have a SQL Instance installed? If yes, I assume 1 virtual > > instance of sql is treated as the main, and all federation members are > > configured as linked servers. > > - When I create my partitioned views, are the servers connected via linked > > servers? Remote servers? > > - When issuing a select, how do I use the (nolock) or read-uncommitted > > isolation level across linked servers? I don't want to add nolock to a > > view > > that is updateable. How to deal with this? I definitely do not want my > > select > > blocking dml... > > - Any tips or tricks or gotchas with this architecture? > > - I haven't been able to find definitive documentation on this > > architecture, > > anyone know of some good links or books? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > ChrisB > > > >
What you are talking about is called a Server Federation and is more akin to
Network Load balancing, which is a scale-out solution. SQL Server Failover Clustering uses Server Clusters and is a High Availability solution, not a scaling solution. Federated Server help scale out by distributing the load across multiple servers; however, unlike NLB where each web server has an exact copy, each SQL Server in a federation has an exact copy of the structure, but partitions the data. For example, say we have a Customer table. The A through M customers could be saved to one installation and the N through Z customers to a second. You could partition more finely and scale out to additional servers in the Federation. You also use linked servers so that each installation can speak and pass through to the others. You would also create Distributed Partitioned Views on each copy of the database that reassembles the data through UNIONs against the Linked Server definitions so that each server could represent that view of the data. Clients would be redirected to a server and be able to query this UNIONed VIEW, but, more importantly, through the partitioning and CHECK CONSTRAINTs against the tables, CRUD operations against the VIEW would be redirected to the appropriate partitioned table. Pretty complex stuff. Luckily, with SS2K5, Partitioned Tables along with Partitioned Indexes will make this much easier to implement. Finally, each server that is a member of a Federation, could in essence be a Virtual Failover Cluster installation, for High Availability. In W2K3, both Enterprise and Datacenter Server Editions can support up to 8 nodes within a single Failover Cluster environment. With this, along with Server Federations, some pretty complex "Clustered MegaServers" could be envisioned. Best of luck. Sincerely, Anthony Thomas -- [quoted text, click to view] "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@sjm.com> wrote in message news:%23a9SSwZ6FHA.1720@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > Looks like the technology you are looking for is linked servers, not > clustered servers. Clustered servers is another technology to achieve high > availability. For example, a popular cluster configuration has 2 servers, > one active and one passive, but SQL Server is only running on the active > node. The passive is doing nothing, just waiting to automatically replace > the active node in case this has a problem. > > Documentation for both technologies are on the Books Online. > > Regards, > > Ben Nevarez > > > > > "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:48E011E5-DAD0-48A0-B059-2DBFAA2975C7@microsoft.com... > > > > I assume this term is used for clustering all your Federated Server > > members. > > > > - Does each node have a SQL Instance installed? If yes, I assume 1 virtual > > instance of sql is treated as the main, and all federation members are > > configured as linked servers. > > - When I create my partitioned views, are the servers connected via linked > > servers? Remote servers? > > - When issuing a select, how do I use the (nolock) or read-uncommitted > > isolation level across linked servers? I don't want to add nolock to a > > view > > that is updateable. How to deal with this? I definitely do not want my > > select > > blocking dml... > > - Any tips or tricks or gotchas with this architecture? > > - I haven't been able to find definitive documentation on this > > architecture, > > anyone know of some good links or books? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > ChrisB > > > >
" Luckily, with SS2K5, Partitioned Tables along with
Partitioned Indexes will make this much easier to implement." Partitioned tables in SQL05 are partitioned within a single database. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Columnist, SQL Server Professional Toronto, ON Canada www.pinpub.com [quoted text, click to view] "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:%23DzgB1$6FHA.1140@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > What you are talking about is called a Server Federation and is more akin > to > Network Load balancing, which is a scale-out solution. SQL Server > Failover > Clustering uses Server Clusters and is a High Availability solution, not a > scaling solution. > > Federated Server help scale out by distributing the load across multiple > servers; however, unlike NLB where each web server has an exact copy, each > SQL Server in a federation has an exact copy of the structure, but > partitions the data. > > For example, say we have a Customer table. The A through M customers > could > be saved to one installation and the N through Z customers to a second. > You > could partition more finely and scale out to additional servers in the > Federation. You also use linked servers so that each installation can > speak > and pass through to the others. > > You would also create Distributed Partitioned Views on each copy of the > database that reassembles the data through UNIONs against the Linked > Server > definitions so that each server could represent that view of the data. > > Clients would be redirected to a server and be able to query this UNIONed > VIEW, but, more importantly, through the partitioning and CHECK > CONSTRAINTs > against the tables, CRUD operations against the VIEW would be redirected > to > the appropriate partitioned table. > > Pretty complex stuff. Luckily, with SS2K5, Partitioned Tables along with > Partitioned Indexes will make this much easier to implement. > > Finally, each server that is a member of a Federation, could in essence be > a > Virtual Failover Cluster installation, for High Availability. > > In W2K3, both Enterprise and Datacenter Server Editions can support up to > 8 > nodes within a single Failover Cluster environment. With this, along with > Server Federations, some pretty complex "Clustered MegaServers" could be > envisioned. > > Best of luck. > > Sincerely, > > > Anthony Thomas > > > -- > > "Ben Nevarez" <bnevarez@sjm.com> wrote in message > news:%23a9SSwZ6FHA.1720@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >> Looks like the technology you are looking for is linked servers, not >> clustered servers. Clustered servers is another technology to achieve >> high >> availability. For example, a popular cluster configuration has 2 servers, >> one active and one passive, but SQL Server is only running on the active >> node. The passive is doing nothing, just waiting to automatically replace >> the active node in case this has a problem. >> >> Documentation for both technologies are on the Books Online. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ben Nevarez >> >> >> >> >> "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:48E011E5-DAD0-48A0-B059-2DBFAA2975C7@microsoft.com... >> > >> > I assume this term is used for clustering all your Federated Server >> > members. >> > >> > - Does each node have a SQL Instance installed? If yes, I assume 1 > virtual >> > instance of sql is treated as the main, and all federation members are >> > configured as linked servers. >> > - When I create my partitioned views, are the servers connected via > linked >> > servers? Remote servers? >> > - When issuing a select, how do I use the (nolock) or read-uncommitted >> > isolation level across linked servers? I don't want to add nolock to a >> > view >> > that is updateable. How to deal with this? I definitely do not want my >> > select >> > blocking dml... >> > - Any tips or tricks or gotchas with this architecture? >> > - I haven't been able to find definitive documentation on this >> > architecture, >> > anyone know of some good links or books? >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > ChrisB >> > >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |