Re: Clustering for Performance
- From: "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:21 -0500
Active/Active is a holdover from a specific technical implementation of
clustering for SQL 7.0. It was not scale-out either. The correct current
term is multi-instance. As you have read, SQL clustering is a failover and
availability technology only. SQL clustering does not load balance. SQL
does not have a native, automatic load balancing technology. There are some
third party virtualization technologies, but like any scale-out technology,
adding nodes does not equate to linear performance gains, and there are many
situations where such solutions do not work.
As with clustering, Database Mirroring is a failover technology and actually
has negative impacts on performance. There is one area where it can be used
to scale out, but that only works for read-only queries.
Segregating the blob data is not a bad idea, provided you do it down to the
physical disk level.
To summarize, there are no shortcuts to scalability, just like you can't
shortcut availability. Having said that, it sounds like you need a
reasonably large SQL server. That is not an impossible proposition. SQL
Server scales up very well. There are several vendors that can sell you an
adequate system. Some will even help you size it. You might think about
hiring an experienced SQL consultant who specializes in large-scale SQL
Systems to guide you through the process. (No, I am not trying to drum up
business, my time is fully booked).
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Richard" <Richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A115E5ED-8801-4142-B921-FD25665FE3C0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hello All. I need to set up quite a large SQL System 2005 system that
> needs
> to deal with 40,000 concurrent users, and one of the tables will contain
> blob
> data. 40,000 users throwing around Mb's of data at the same time worries
> me a
> little bit!
>
> My question is to do with Database Clustering and Mirroring. From what I
> can
> see, there is still no load-balancing with SQL Server 2005, so does this
> mean
> even in a clustered environment I am still basically only using a single
> database server? I have seen many posts that tell me that clustering is
> ONLY
> for failover and not for performance. I understand that with
> Active/Passive
> this is the case, but how about Active/Active? If I can set up
> Active/Active
> (2 nodes? 4 nodes? 8 nodes? how many are possible?) with a SAN and NOT
> have
> failover implemented (can I turn failover off?) then would I have a load
> balanced environment? I could then have all nodes running up to 100%
> (because
> I don't have to worry about the failover) and therefore give me a dramatic
> increase in performance compared with using a single server?
>
> If I can do this then I can set up 2 identical clusters and an extra
> server
> for the witness, and use database mirroring for failover? Of course I
> understand that mirroring will decrease performance on the clusters. But
> would this give me a super-fast database system that might cope with what
> I
> need?
>
> Also, I am thinking about taking the blob data of of the database and
> create
> a new database that just deals with the blobs. How would this affect my
> clustered/mirrored environment?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Clustering for Performance
- From: Z
- Re: Clustering for Performance
- From: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
- Re: Clustering for Performance
- Prev by Date: Re: No item under Computer Management
- Next by Date: Re: Clustering for Performance
- Previous by thread: No item under Computer Management
- Next by thread: Re: Clustering for Performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
