Re: sql clustering vs load balancing
From: bribonfi (bribonfi_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 01/05/05
- Next message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Previous message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Next in thread: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Reply: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:43:04 -0800
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
>
>
>
- Next message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Previous message: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Next in thread: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Reply: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: sql clustering vs load balancing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
