Re: How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

I think you are not considering the full ramifications of partitioning that
Tom has recommended, even on a single hardware installation.

It is not just a disk resource issue that partitioning attempts to resolve.

Unless you expect each of the 5 users to query the entire 10 Billion rows on
each pass, partitioning will limit the user to the specified data needed at
for any individual pass if the partitioning function is chosen correctly.

I suspect this table is large because the data is time sensitive, that is,
historical?

If so, if you had a dedicated table (or partition) for each month, week,
day, whatever the granularity is, and then one only needed data for that
particular date range, they would then only access a single table
(partition) instead of the entire data set.

If this data represents years of monthly, or daily, data, then each query
would only have to deal with a handful of tables, each only a few hundred
thousand or so records. Each query then becomes 10, 100, maybe even 1,000
or more times quicker.

Sincerely,


Anthony Thomas


--

"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A1D3E5D7-2077-443D-9F6E-D6056A4BCA83@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
i think it is not difficult. i want to distribute my big table between
many
servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server.
i want to use a method that is is distributable. for example: when my
table
being larger i could add some new servers to my system to increase my
performance without changing current servers.
note: i only want increase my performance only by add a complete new
servers
(include CPU,Ram,...) to currenct system


"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Well, without seeing your entire system, that would be difficult.

If you have a disk I/O bottleneck, it could be that you're memory
starved.
It could also be that your RAID array has very few spindles.

What numbers have you been getting from Perf Mon?


--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D066863B-BAB8-48CE-8D1B-C3BBC451E505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. However,
all
data will still be managed by a single server. my performance bottleneck
is
not only Disks resources but also CPU or memory, this method can resolve
my
Disk Performance bottleneck but it can't resolve my CPU or memory
Performance
bottleneck.
please help me to find a solution for all resource include
(CPU,Ram,Disk,...).

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Clusters are for high availability (HA) - not load balancing. You
should
look at partitioned tables (SQL 2005) or partitioned views (SQL 2000).
If
your queries always include the partitioning column in the WHERE
clause,
you
should be able to realize a performance benefit without necessarily
going
to
more servers. In the event that partitioned tables, or local
partitioned
views, don't do it, then distributed partitioned views -0 where you do
use
multiple servers - can be the solution.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0366D5B7-B160-417E-8037-5269258365FF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and
Insert
many
records from or into this table in less than one second.
i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005
but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server
2005.
how can i distribute or cluster this table between many
hardwares(Servers)?
note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a
very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this
users in less than 1 second.
i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i
can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many
medium price hardware for my server.
note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table
his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SQL 2000 Load Balancing Question
    ... the upper limits of hardware are well beyond what any decently ... Microsoft SQL Server MVP. ... >> database, is not possible with SQL Server 2000. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: 32 bit SQL vs 64 bit
    ... As Geoff says the hardware upgrade is right time to move to 64 bit, ... fees for Windows as well as SQL Server 2005 moving from 32 to 64 bit. ... Geoff N. Hiten ... Microsoft SQL Server MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: SQL Server 2000 Hardware
    ... SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports 2GB of RAM. ... RAID volume for your database files, a separate RAID volume for the log ... hardware to support clustering. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?
    ... servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server. ... SQL Server MVP ... Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. ... medium price hardware for my server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?
    ... benchmark soon after going RTM with SQL Server 2000. ... Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. ... medium price hardware for my server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)