|
|
You're in the
sql server clustering
group:sql clustering vs load balancing
sql server clustering:
day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two dell pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I benifit from configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient to confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. thanks,
thanks mike,
currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between them, and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. these machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow performance sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently purchased those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to configure these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one dedicated to incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this becuase it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then using a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create a sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin effect. Now i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or active/passive. But i have questions. with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance increase. do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do they replicate. thanks in advance for all you help [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very intelligent > code in your application that can handle replication) > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active Microsoft > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is going > to push your hardware to the limit. > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > Look at > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > Regards > -------------------------------- > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Zurich, Switzerland > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial transactinos > a > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two > dell > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I benifit > from > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient to > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > thanks, > > Brian > >
my data and logs are on same partition currently and its a raid-5. should the
be on sep partitions. what is benifit of raid-10. ALso, i would love to move away from replication, but how could you then keep up to date data on another sql server at another physical location. For example if i have serves in cali, and a server in kentucky for backup. Right now i use global load balancing to reroute my dns if we have a faliure at one location. I also use replication to keep data betweeen locations up to date. how would i do this without replication. [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi > > Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your > performance? > It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to write > away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can result > in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. > > Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of SQL > Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. > > Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. Logs > on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, RAID-5), > backups on another RAID-10 set. > > Regards > -------------------------------- > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Zurich, Switzerland > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > > thanks mike, > > > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between them, > > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. these > > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow performance > > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently purchased > > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to > configure > > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one dedicated > to > > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this > becuase > > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then > using > > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create a > > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin effect. > Now > > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or active/passive. > But > > i have questions. > > > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance increase. > > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do they > > replicate. > > > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very > intelligent > > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active Microsoft > > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is > going > > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > > > Look at > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > > > Regards > > > -------------------------------- > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial > transactinos > > > a > > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two > > > dell > > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I > benifit > > > from > > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient > to > > > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > >
log shipping i don't think is really an option. i can live with the
replication. but i am interested in this raid-10. should i have the logs and the data and the os on different partions. could you give me an example of how you might partition out 5 36 gig 15000 rpm with raid-10 [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi > > Transaction logs are written sequentially. RAID-5 performs badly in this > scenario. RAID-5 needs to always calculate the parity and write that too. > RAID-10 writes as fast as the drives can write. I have seen RAID-10 > outperform RAID-5 by 60%. Disks are cheap, why let a fast machine get bogged > down by old technology? > > Log shipping does not have the per transaction overhead. It may be a > solution for you. Read about it on BOL. In effect, you create a hot standby > server. > > Regards > > -------------------------------- > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Zurich, Switzerland > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:9A766C67-4984-4BC5-B562-2EDE20EC11A9@microsoft.com... > > my data and logs are on same partition currently and its a raid-5. should > the > > be on sep partitions. what is benifit of raid-10. > > > > ALso, i would love to move away from replication, but how could you then > > keep up to date data on another sql server at another physical location. > > > > For example if i have serves in cali, and a server in kentucky for backup. > > Right now i use global load balancing to reroute my dns if we have a > faliure > > at one location. I also use replication to keep data betweeen locations up > to > > date. how would i do this without replication. > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your > > > performance? > > > It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to > write > > > away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can > result > > > in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. > > > > > > Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of > SQL > > > Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. > > > > > > Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. > Logs > > > on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, > RAID-5), > > > backups on another RAID-10 set. > > > > > > Regards > > > -------------------------------- > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > > > > thanks mike, > > > > > > > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between > them, > > > > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. > these > > > > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow > performance > > > > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently > purchased > > > > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to > > > configure > > > > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one > dedicated > > > to > > > > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this > > > becuase > > > > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > > > > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then > > > using > > > > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create > a > > > > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin > effect. > > > Now > > > > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or > active/passive. > > > But > > > > i have questions. > > > > > > > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance > increase. > > > > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do > they > > > > replicate. > > > > > > > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very > > > intelligent > > > > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > > > > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active > Microsoft > > > > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is > > > going > > > > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > > > > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > > > > > > > Look at > > > > > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial > > > transactinos > > > > > a > > > > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased > two > > > > > dell > > > > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I > > > benifit > > > > > from > > > > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more > efficient > > > to > > > > > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Hi
You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very intelligent code in your application that can handle replication) We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active Microsoft Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is going to push your hardware to the limit. Clustering is for High Availability. Look at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial transactinos a > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two dell > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I benifit from > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient to > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > thanks, > Brian
Hi
Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your performance? It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to write away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can result in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of SQL Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. Logs on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, RAID-5), backups on another RAID-10 set. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > thanks mike, > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between them, > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. these > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow performance > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently purchased > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to configure > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one dedicated to > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this becuase > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then using > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create a > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin effect. Now > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or active/passive. But > i have questions. > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance increase. > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do they > replicate. > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > Hi > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very intelligent > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active Microsoft > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is going > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > Look at > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > Regards > > -------------------------------- > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial transactinos > > a > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two > > dell > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I benifit > > from > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient to > > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > > > thanks, > > > Brian > > > > > >
Hi
Transaction logs are written sequentially. RAID-5 performs badly in this scenario. RAID-5 needs to always calculate the parity and write that too. RAID-10 writes as fast as the drives can write. I have seen RAID-10 outperform RAID-5 by 60%. Disks are cheap, why let a fast machine get bogged down by old technology? Log shipping does not have the per transaction overhead. It may be a solution for you. Read about it on BOL. In effect, you create a hot standby server. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9A766C67-4984-4BC5-B562-2EDE20EC11A9@microsoft.com... > my data and logs are on same partition currently and its a raid-5. should the > be on sep partitions. what is benifit of raid-10. > > ALso, i would love to move away from replication, but how could you then > keep up to date data on another sql server at another physical location. > > For example if i have serves in cali, and a server in kentucky for backup. > Right now i use global load balancing to reroute my dns if we have a faliure > at one location. I also use replication to keep data betweeen locations up to > date. how would i do this without replication. > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your > > performance? > > It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to write > > away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can result > > in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. > > > > Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of SQL > > Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. > > > > Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. Logs > > on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, RAID-5), > > backups on another RAID-10 set. > > > > Regards > > -------------------------------- > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > > > thanks mike, > > > > > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between them, > > > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. these > > > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow performance > > > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently purchased > > > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to > > configure > > > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one dedicated > > to > > > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this > > becuase > > > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > > > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then > > using > > > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create a > > > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin effect. > > Now > > > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or active/passive. > > But > > > i have questions. > > > > > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance increase. > > > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do they > > > replicate. > > > > > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very > > intelligent > > > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active Microsoft > > > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is > > going > > > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > > > > > Look at > > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial > > transactinos > > > > a > > > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased two > > > > dell > > > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I > > benifit > > > > from > > > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more efficient > > to > > > > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Hi
5 Drives is not enough for RAID-10. If you have 6 drives, you in effect have the storage capacity of 3 drives. RAID-10 is best with 10+ drives as then you have 10 spindles working away. If you need to stay with replication, then you have to put up with the performance degradation that is causes. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FD7F5FB-C9E9-49FA-9CED-D79D95A68DD8@microsoft.com... > log shipping i don't think is really an option. i can live with the > replication. but i am interested in this raid-10. should i have the logs and > the data and the os on different partions. could you give me an example of > how you might partition out 5 36 gig 15000 rpm with raid-10 > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Transaction logs are written sequentially. RAID-5 performs badly in this > > scenario. RAID-5 needs to always calculate the parity and write that too. > > RAID-10 writes as fast as the drives can write. I have seen RAID-10 > > outperform RAID-5 by 60%. Disks are cheap, why let a fast machine get bogged > > down by old technology? > > > > Log shipping does not have the per transaction overhead. It may be a > > solution for you. Read about it on BOL. In effect, you create a hot standby > > server. > > > > Regards > > > > -------------------------------- > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:9A766C67-4984-4BC5-B562-2EDE20EC11A9@microsoft.com... > > > my data and logs are on same partition currently and its a raid-5. should > > the > > > be on sep partitions. what is benifit of raid-10. > > > > > > ALso, i would love to move away from replication, but how could you then > > > keep up to date data on another sql server at another physical location. > > > > > > For example if i have serves in cali, and a server in kentucky for backup. > > > Right now i use global load balancing to reroute my dns if we have a > > faliure > > > at one location. I also use replication to keep data betweeen locations up > > to > > > date. how would i do this without replication. > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your > > > > performance? > > > > It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to > > write > > > > away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can > > result > > > > in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. > > > > > > > > Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of > > SQL > > > > Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. > > > > > > > > Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. > > Logs > > > > on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, > > RAID-5), > > > > backups on another RAID-10 set. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > > > > > thanks mike, > > > > > > > > > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between > > them, > > > > > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. > > these > > > > > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow > > performance > > > > > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently > > purchased > > > > > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to > > > > configure > > > > > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one > > dedicated > > > > to > > > > > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this > > > > becuase > > > > > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > > > > > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then > > > > using > > > > > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create > > a > > > > > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin > > effect. > > > > Now > > > > > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or > > active/passive. > > > > But > > > > > i have questions. > > > > > > > > > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance > > increase. > > > > > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do > > they > > > > > replicate. > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very > > > > intelligent > > > > > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > > > > > > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active > > Microsoft > > > > > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is > > > > going > > > > > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > > > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial > > > > transactinos > > > > > > a > > > > > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased > > two > > > > > > dell > > > > > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I > > > > benifit > > > > > > from > > > > > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more > > efficient > > > > to
[quoted text, click to view] "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9FD7F5FB-C9E9-49FA-9CED-D79D95A68DD8@microsoft.com... > log shipping i don't think is really an option. i can live with the > replication. but i am interested in this raid-10. should i have the logs and > the data and the os on different partions. YES. [quoted text, click to view] > could you give me an example of > how you might partition out 5 36 gig 15000 rpm with raid-10 5... I'd get more. Best you could do (for this scenario in my mind) is 2 RAID 1 setups with the 5th for hot spare. This would give you 2 36 gig drives. I'd put Logs on one, Data on the other. [quoted text, click to view] > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Transaction logs are written sequentially. RAID-5 performs badly in this > > scenario. RAID-5 needs to always calculate the parity and write that too. > > RAID-10 writes as fast as the drives can write. I have seen RAID-10 > > outperform RAID-5 by 60%. Disks are cheap, why let a fast machine get bogged > > down by old technology? > > > > Log shipping does not have the per transaction overhead. It may be a > > solution for you. Read about it on BOL. In effect, you create a hot standby > > server. > > > > Regards > > > > -------------------------------- > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:9A766C67-4984-4BC5-B562-2EDE20EC11A9@microsoft.com... > > > my data and logs are on same partition currently and its a raid-5. should > > the > > > be on sep partitions. what is benifit of raid-10. > > > > > > ALso, i would love to move away from replication, but how could you then > > > keep up to date data on another sql server at another physical location. > > > > > > For example if i have serves in cali, and a server in kentucky for backup. > > > Right now i use global load balancing to reroute my dns if we have a > > faliure > > > at one location. I also use replication to keep data betweeen locations up > > to > > > date. how would i do this without replication. > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Have you looked at how much overhead replication detracts from your > > > > performance? > > > > It might be causing all the trouble. All forms of replication need to > > write > > > > away that something changed, so under heavy loads, every update can > > result > > > > in an extra 1 read and write for replication alone on the server. > > > > > > > > Clustering Actice/Active is not load balancing, it means an instance of > > SQL > > > > Server runs on each node, serving up different databases. > > > > > > > > Performance problems, check that your drives are configured correctly. > > Logs > > > > on a Stripe and Mirror (RAID-10), Data on RAID-10 (an at a push, > > RAID-5), > > > > backups on another RAID-10 set. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > news:DD565850-04D3-462F-9540-4F390C382CEA@microsoft.com... > > > > > thanks mike, > > > > > > > > > > currently we run 3 sql servers pe2650's and I replicate data between > > them, > > > > > and the are load balanced using a microsoft load balance cluster. > > these > > > > > machines also host our web sites. the problem is we get slow > > performance > > > > > sometimes when handling incoming transactions. I just recently > > purchased > > > > > those 6650's and i am having trouble figuring out the best way to > > > > configure > > > > > these two new machines. At first i was thinking i would have one > > dedicated > > > > to > > > > > incoming transactiona and one to outgoint(reads). I strayed from this > > > > becuase > > > > > it would require chages to our application. Now i am leaning towards > > > > > configuring each machine separatley, replicating the database and then > > > > using > > > > > a load balance cluster for just these two machines, which would create > > a > > > > > sigle ip address for my database servers. a sort of round robin > > effect. > > > > Now > > > > > i am looking into using a 2 node cluster active/active or > > active/passive. > > > > But > > > > > i have questions. > > > > > > > > > > with your active/active how does it work. Is there a performance > > increase. > > > > > do you access each server as if there were separete servers. how do > > they > > > > > replicate. > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance for all you help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > You can not load balance SQL Server (unless you add some very > > > > intelligent > > > > > > code in your application that can handle replication) > > > > > > > > > > > > We run massive trading systems against 2 node active-active > > Microsoft > > > > > > Clusters, and we are very happy. If you have badly coded apps, it is > > > > going > > > > > > to push your hardware to the limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clustering is for High Availability. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > > Zurich, Switzerland > > > > > > > > > > > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > > > > > > > > > > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > > > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > > > > > > > > > > > "bribonfi" <bribonfi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:60B6F1F0-567C-4EAB-AC3E-220759DADC57@microsoft.com... > > > > > > > I have a web application that takes in thousands of financial > > > > transactinos > > > > > > a > > > > > > > day, as well as displays all this financial data. I just purchased > > two > > > > > > dell > > > > > > > pe6650 with quad 3.0 xeons, and 12 gigs of ram a piece. Would I > > > > benifit > > > > > > from > > > > > > > configuring these servers into a cluster or would it be more > > efficient > > > > to > > > > > > > confiure them seperatly and jusl load balance them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
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 |