Re: Clustering for Performance
- From: "Z" <z@xxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:31:29 -0600
Lots of questions and LOTS of things to consider. No, a cluster doesn't
give you performance. You have a single database, no copies anywhere.
Now, if the data your users are reading is truely static or at least static
within a given timeframe AND you have a SAN, you can get increased capacity
by using the Scalable Shared Database feature keeping in mind that all reads
are going to the same set of disk devices.
If the data isn't static, but you need increased read capacity, you can
leverage the replication engine which can provide not only a readable copy
of your database, but it can also be used for failover.
40,000 concurrent users is doable, even on small systems. It really depends
upon what the data volume looks like, how the network is setup to handle the
traffic, and how the code is written that will run against it.
"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
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Clustering for Performance
- Next by Date: Re: Clustering for Performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Clustering for Performance
- Next by thread: SQLServer Agent Properties/Connection/Windows-SQL Auth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
