Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- From: "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:48:04 -0400
So far, the upper limits of hardware are well beyond what any decently
written application could use. Some applications lend themselves to
horizontal partitioning while others don't. You are running a good
dual-processor box and are only at the beginning of your upgrade journey.
You can go with many more processors, lots of memory, and superfast IO
subsystems. The real key is to understand what resources your system
consumes in what ratio so you can make intelligent decisions about your
hardware upgrades. I am pretty sure Dell has some tools available to help
size a SQL database server but you will still have to monitor your system
and gather some meaningful information.
Good luck,
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP.
"Kate Smith" <ksmith2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23aGvbL3ZFHA.3328@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for the reply Geoff. What i'm wondering then is what happens when
> you reach the limits of hardware like I guess Microsoft do for their
> sites - they must have multiple servers running?
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23yLYqF3ZFHA.796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> SQL Custering is a failover technlogy, not a load-balancing technology.
>> The situation you describe, two servers accessing and managing the same
>> database, is not possible with SQL Server 2000. Only one host node in a
>> cluster owns and manages a SQL Server. Should that host node fail, the
>> entire server goes over to another node.
>>
>> You need to determine what is the limiting factor on your system (CPU,
>> memory, IO, Disk Capacity) and upgrade or replace your system
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "Kate Smith" <ksmith2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:uGJWsA3ZFHA.720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I have a question that I hope someone can shed some light on. We are
>>> currently running a dedicated Dell 2850 SQL server box with a single
>>> database on it that has become very heavily used over the last year.
>>> What we'd like to do is to add another server (rather than buying higher
>>> spec hardware) to load balance the SQL database. I'm aware that I will
>>> need to buy some shared storage (such as a Dell PV 220s) and connect the
>>> 2 servers to this but will I be able to load balance the single database
>>> in this situation so that half the traffic goes to one server and half
>>> to the other? I've read a bit about clustering and would like to setup a
>>> cluster where both nodes are accessing the same database and if one node
>>> fails, the otehr will take over (albeit with a performance reduction of
>>> course).
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help guys.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- From: Jeffrey K. Ericson
- Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- References:
- SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- From: Kate Smith
- Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- From: Geoff N. Hiten
- Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- From: Kate Smith
- SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- Prev by Date: Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- Next by Date: doubled server name in query analyzer (on available servers list)
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- Next by thread: Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|