Re: BizTalk server Topology & scalibilty

Re-reading the original question, I think I was answering a differen one :-)
apologies Halo.

"Jon Fancey" wrote:

> Yes that's true, thanks. I hadn't considered splitting the send and receive
> sides of the same adapter. From my reading I was only thinking of the
> orchestraton/adapter split. I'm still not sure why you'd *want* to do it
> though along these lines? It seems more logical to me that you'd want to
> split orchestrations up across different hosts as needs dictate rather than
> an 'orchestration server'? This would allow for more predictable perf and
> control over relative priorities.
>
> "Matt Milner" wrote:
>
> > Actually, if I understood the question correctly, this is definitely
> > possible. Receive adapters are bound to one or more hosts, send adapters
> > ard bound to a host, and orchestrations can be bound to a host. In
> > addition, tracking can be configured on a host basis. So you can definitely
> > have host that is enabled for tracking and that has all of the receive
> > locations bound to it. You can have another host that you setup your send
> > ports on and that you bind all of your orchestrations to. There is some
> > trickiness in terms of the send ports getting bound to default hosts and not
> > being able to change the host for the MSMQT adapter, but for hte most part
> > it is straight forward.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > "Jon Fancey" <JonFancey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:A1DE7E78-1DA3-4C27-9E82-EA0CDD0F4BC2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > HaloX,
> > >
> > > I'm afraid the simple answer to your question is No.
> > >
> > > What you are essentially asking is to split different but related
> > > activities
> > > within the BizTalk engine across multiple engines on different servers. As
> > > Hugo points out BizTalk is stateless, that is to say all state is
> > > maintained
> > > only in the SQL server databases (unless one inadvertently starts creating
> > > stateful adapters, orchestrations, etc but that's another story). This
> > > includes orchestrations, pipelines etc. So, in a non-deterministic way the
> > > load from receive to send *may* be processed by different servers, for
> > > example if the orchestration instance is dehydated to the SQL store and
> > > subsequently rehydrated on another box.
> > >
> > > But this is non-deterministic and as such you aren't able to *specify*
> > > particular servers for particular tasks at this granularity. The only way
> > > to
> > > achieve this is to perform routing between servers (by name) within say an
> > > internal service such that a received request is passed by an
> > > orchestration
> > > on box A to box B which will send a reply. This would require some
> > > hoop-jumping though to avoid a request/reply pattern just passing straight
> > > back through both boxes for the response. It probably wouldn't buy you
> > > much
> > > either if perf or scalability is what you're after.
> > >
> > > However, if you are not using a request/reply pattern, say you are using a
> > > one-way request and one-way response, then you could just deploy each of
> > > these to different machines (groups - that don't share the same SQL
> > > config)
> > > and configure it to achieve what you want. The connection (if any) between
> > > the two though then has to be handled by you explicitly i.e. you'll have
> > > to
> > > do your own correlation.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps clarify it a bit for you. I am interested why this is your
> > > desired config?
> > >
> > > "HaloX" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Looking through the BizTalk documentation and books I see recommended
> > >> configuration of hosts. There are the following configurations:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Single server: Single server runs ALL BizTalk and SQL operations
> > >> 2) Two Server: A single server runs SQL while another runs all BizTalk
> > >> operations.
> > >> 3) Multiple Server: Multiple servers running BizTalk and configured
> > >> with
> > >> each machine host running specific isolated functions to scale out the
> > >> receive, processing, transmitting and tracking. One or more (recommended
> > >> for
> > >> this configuration) servers running SQL in cluster.
> > >>
> > >> Now, the issue is I have a SQL cluster running SPS. I want to leverage
> > >> this
> > >> cluster because it is hardly tasked and I will have BizTalk run on a
> > >> seprate
> > >> SQL instance. I would like to have two machines running BizTalk:
> > >>
> > >> * One configured a Message Box Master Recieve, and Tracking
> > >> * One configured for Transmit and Orchestrations
> > >>
> > >> Will BizTalk support this configuration. Nothing in the documentation
> > >> identifies if certain configs AREN'T supported, but from my experience
> > >> this
> > >> doesn't mean much. In SPS there are certain configs not supported and
> > >> nothing in the initial documentation identified this.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> >
> >
> >
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Biztalk out of memory errors
    ... I created different host for different adapters and functional ... specific orchestrations) ... Biztalk 2004 Orchestration using Interop. ... >>> I seem to get Biztalk out of memory errors after I submit message after ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • Re: Sharing a Biztalk system
    ... Faced with a simlar scenario I would certainly host each team's assemblies ... I am now in a fairly large project where we need to share our BTS ... orchestrations (as well as their own stuff that doesnt concern the ... can they all just use the same set of databases. ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • Re: BizTalk server Topology & scalibilty
    ... Receive adapters are bound to one or more hosts, ... > ard bound to a host, and orchestrations can be bound to a host. ... >> desired config? ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.server)
  • RE: Biztalk out of memory errors
    ... I'm sure that it's my orchestrations that are causing the issue. ... two send ports and both are on a seperate host. ... I simply cannot believe that Biztalk can't handle this ... >> I seem to get Biztalk out of memory errors after I submit message after ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • Re: Biztalk basics...
    ... Most of the webcasts can be downloaded and they will email the PPT the next ... register for it and then there will be a link to download for offline ... Yes, FILE is an adapter as are SOAP, HTTP, MSMQT etc. Adapters are ... Orchestrations are needed only for business processes and calling out ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
Loading