| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : Partitioned tables over several cluster nodes
Hi,
I try to figure out whether - and if yes, how - it works to to set up an active/active cluster with several SQL Server 2005 instances that are using partitioned tables. For example, a big table with orders: Orders A-K <- instance 1 Orders L-Z <- instance 2 Users should be able to access both of the instances and do their jobs, and if it happens that somebody from instance 1 wants a dataset from instance 2, then it should be served by partitioned views. Whenever a failure occurs, the cluster has to "failover" That's the theory, but how do I do this sort of setup practically? Somebody has anything for me? I simply didn't find anything according to this since now :-( Kind regards,
Hi Tom,
Have I got this right? Using a distributed partitioned view, I can use my two nodes with two databases, in each of them one partitioned table? It should be the same database on each node, only the biiiig table should be partitioned. Right? :-) Do you have any link for me concerning this topic? Thanks in advance, Thomas "Tom Moreau" schrieb: [quoted text, click to view] > A "partitioned table" must reside within one DB. A "distributed partitioned
> view" can reside in more than one DB across multiple instances of SQL > Server. It does not matter if the instances are clustered. You can combine > both of these technologies. For example, Orders A-K could be in a single > partitioned table in instance 1 while Orders L-Z reside in a single > partitioned table in instance 2. They could then be part of a distributed > partitioned view across both instances. > > You'd need to create the filegroups, partitioning functions and schemes. > Create your tables. Ideally, the partitioning column for the DPV should be > the same as for the underlying partitioning schemes. Create the linked > servers, with the appropriate security. Turn on lazy schema validation. > Create the views - one in each DB. > > HTH > > -- > Tom > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA > SQL Server MVP > Toronto, ON Canada > .. > "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:141C4451-88E5-4BBD-A878-59914E97F0CD@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I try to figure out whether - and if yes, how - it works to to set up an > active/active cluster with several SQL Server 2005 instances that are using > partitioned tables. > > For example, a big table with orders: > > Orders A-K <- instance 1 > Orders L-Z <- instance 2 > > Users should be able to access both of the instances and do their jobs, and > if it happens that somebody from instance 1 wants a dataset from instance 2, > then it should be served by partitioned views. > Whenever a failure occurs, the cluster has to "failover" > > That's the theory, but how do I do this sort of setup practically? > Somebody has anything for me? I simply didn't find anything according to > this since now :-( > > Kind regards, > Thomas >
A "partitioned table" must reside within one DB. A "distributed partitioned
view" can reside in more than one DB across multiple instances of SQL Server. It does not matter if the instances are clustered. You can combine both of these technologies. For example, Orders A-K could be in a single partitioned table in instance 1 while Orders L-Z reside in a single partitioned table in instance 2. They could then be part of a distributed partitioned view across both instances. You'd need to create the filegroups, partitioning functions and schemes. Create your tables. Ideally, the partitioning column for the DPV should be the same as for the underlying partitioning schemes. Create the linked servers, with the appropriate security. Turn on lazy schema validation. Create the views - one in each DB. HTH -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada .. [quoted text, click to view] "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Hi,news:141C4451-88E5-4BBD-A878-59914E97F0CD@microsoft.com... I try to figure out whether - and if yes, how - it works to to set up an active/active cluster with several SQL Server 2005 instances that are using partitioned tables. For example, a big table with orders: Orders A-K <- instance 1 Orders L-Z <- instance 2 Users should be able to access both of the instances and do their jobs, and if it happens that somebody from instance 1 wants a dataset from instance 2, then it should be served by partitioned views. Whenever a failure occurs, the cluster has to "failover" That's the theory, but how do I do this sort of setup practically? Somebody has anything for me? I simply didn't find anything according to this since now :-( Kind regards, Thomas
The DB names don't have to have identical names. As Nils mentioned, it's
int the BOL. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada .. [quoted text, click to view] "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Hi Tom,news:0F0A92E3-0040-48D0-B8C1-AB4783FC4E4D@microsoft.com... Have I got this right? Using a distributed partitioned view, I can use my two nodes with two databases, in each of them one partitioned table? It should be the same database on each node, only the biiiig table should be partitioned. Right? :-) Do you have any link for me concerning this topic? Thanks in advance, Thomas "Tom Moreau" schrieb: [quoted text, click to view] > A "partitioned table" must reside within one DB. A "distributed
> partitioned > view" can reside in more than one DB across multiple instances of SQL > Server. It does not matter if the instances are clustered. You can > combine > both of these technologies. For example, Orders A-K could be in a single > partitioned table in instance 1 while Orders L-Z reside in a single > partitioned table in instance 2. They could then be part of a distributed > partitioned view across both instances. > > You'd need to create the filegroups, partitioning functions and schemes. > Create your tables. Ideally, the partitioning column for the DPV should > be > the same as for the underlying partitioning schemes. Create the linked > servers, with the appropriate security. Turn on lazy schema validation. > Create the views - one in each DB. > > HTH > > -- > Tom > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA > SQL Server MVP > Toronto, ON Canada > .. > "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:141C4451-88E5-4BBD-A878-59914E97F0CD@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I try to figure out whether - and if yes, how - it works to to set up an > active/active cluster with several SQL Server 2005 instances that are > using > partitioned tables. > > For example, a big table with orders: > > Orders A-K <- instance 1 > Orders L-Z <- instance 2 > > Users should be able to access both of the instances and do their jobs, > and > if it happens that somebody from instance 1 wants a dataset from instance > 2, > then it should be served by partitioned views. > Whenever a failure occurs, the cluster has to "failover" > > That's the theory, but how do I do this sort of setup practically? > Somebody has anything for me? I simply didn't find anything according to > this since now :-( > > Kind regards, > Thomas > >
Yes, you do :-) the process is documented in the BOL - search for
"distributed partitioned views". There are a couple of potential pitfalls, so you might also want to check the MS knowledge base on this keyword. Best regards, Nils Loeber "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:0F0A92E3-0040-48D0-B8C1-AB4783FC4E4D@microsoft.com... [quoted text, click to view] > Hi Tom, > > Have I got this right? > Using a distributed partitioned view, I can use my two nodes with two > databases, in each of them one partitioned table? > > It should be the same database on each node, only the biiiig table should > be > partitioned. Right? :-) > > Do you have any link for me concerning this topic? > > Thanks in advance, > Thomas > > "Tom Moreau" schrieb: > >> A "partitioned table" must reside within one DB. A "distributed >> partitioned >> view" can reside in more than one DB across multiple instances of SQL >> Server. It does not matter if the instances are clustered. You can >> combine >> both of these technologies. For example, Orders A-K could be in a single >> partitioned table in instance 1 while Orders L-Z reside in a single >> partitioned table in instance 2. They could then be part of a >> distributed >> partitioned view across both instances. >> >> You'd need to create the filegroups, partitioning functions and schemes. >> Create your tables. Ideally, the partitioning column for the DPV should >> be >> the same as for the underlying partitioning schemes. Create the linked >> servers, with the appropriate security. Turn on lazy schema validation. >> Create the views - one in each DB. >> >> HTH >> >> -- >> Tom >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA >> SQL Server MVP >> Toronto, ON Canada >> .. >> "Thomas Anders" <ThomasAnders@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:141C4451-88E5-4BBD-A878-59914E97F0CD@microsoft.com... >> Hi, >> >> I try to figure out whether - and if yes, how - it works to to set up an >> active/active cluster with several SQL Server 2005 instances that are >> using >> partitioned tables. >> >> For example, a big table with orders: >> >> Orders A-K <- instance 1 >> Orders L-Z <- instance 2 >> >> Users should be able to access both of the instances and do their jobs, >> and >> if it happens that somebody from instance 1 wants a dataset from instance >> 2, >> then it should be served by partitioned views. >> Whenever a failure occurs, the cluster has to "failover" >> >> That's the theory, but how do I do this sort of setup practically? >> Somebody has anything for me? I simply didn't find anything according to >> this since now :-( >> >> Kind regards, >> Thomas >> >>
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 |