Re: High availability

There are no native multiple-master database implementation technologies for SQL Server.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP





"Suri Nagarajan" <SuriNagarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:91A0A7A4-536D-45AF-8C7E-CCFAE8C43CB9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think you are right regarding scaling up, now I have to convince my client
to invest in bigger and better hardware for hosting the database, not one but
two or more of similar hardware for fail over server. Thanks for the info,
it was really useful.

But just for my understanding - in SQL server is there an implementation
like Oracle to have multiple master database in different servers with each
database mimicking the same tables,structure and data which gets
automatically synchronized among themselves, so that different users can
connect to different servers and still be looking at the same data?

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

I have worked on many systems with thousands of users on a single server
with no problem given the right configuration. Both scaling up and out have
pros and cons but unless the system is read only scaling out is much more
difficult than scaling up in most cases with SQL Server. These days you can
scale up to a 64 processor system with 1TB of memory so hitting the max
performance limits are pretty hard to do if done correctly.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"Suri Nagarajan" <SuriNagarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5AA822BD-FD7A-47A5-8D01-9455D22C2149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Yes, I did think of scaling up as an option. I have been dealing with > DB2
> and Oracle based systems in the past , I recently took over this SQL
> server
> based system, I am trying to understand/explore all options available
> (since
> I am not sure about the options available in SQL server environment).
>
> Currently we are dealing with user environment with couple of hundred
> users
> which is not a problem, the application is running smooth. But in the
> near
> future this system has to be deployed in an environment where couple of
> thousand users will be accessing the system (huge jump in volume of > data
> and
> number of transactions).
>
> I feel if I scale up, we will be hitting the max performance limits > soon
> due
> to sudden increase in number of users. I think scaling out will be > more
> flexible to add more power in the future if needed. Both High
> availability
> and performance are critical requirements since its an on-line
> transactional
> system.
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
>> FYI, Replication can be used for non-read only servers but is usually >> not
>> a
>> good choice for scaling out in order to get performance gains. You >> need
>> to
>> separate the two requirements (Performance & High availability) >> somewhat
>> as
>> they are typically two completely different solutions or approaches.
>> What
>> is wrong with scaling up? How large is the server now and what do you
>> need
>> to support? And are you sure it has been tuned properly? You might not
>> even
>> have the need to scale up or out.
>>
>> -- >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Suri Nagarajan" <Suri Nagarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message
>> news:BEFF51E6-28E0-4784-A24C-0DBB2C4B497F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >I am new to SQL server, I would appreciate any help on following
>> >question.
>> >I
>> > tried researching and found few options (detailed below after the
>> > question)
>> > which didn't really help what I am trying to do. Any suggestion for >> > the
>> > Gurus
>> > will be helpful.
>> >
>> > I am trying to implement a high availability system which will have
>> > very
>> > high database access traffic - potentially couple of thousand users
>> > trying
>> > to
>> > access a transaction system (read and/or update by most users).
>> > Unfortunately this is not a new system, its an existing system with
>> > around
>> > 200 tables implemented in a single server (Using SQL server as
>> > database),
>> > due to increase in number of users and traffic I need to find ways >> > to
>> > increase availability and performance.
>> >
>> > My final system should be implemented on multiple servers and each
>> > server
>> > hosting SQL server databases (same data, tables and structures) but
>> > they
>> > should be automatically synchronized to have same data (just like
>> > multiple
>> > masters in Oracle) so that different users can be connected to
>> > different
>> > server (for load balancing and performance improvement . Is this
>> > possible
>> > in
>> > SQL server?
>> >
>> > I tried following options
>> >
>> > 1. SQL server clustering - this can only be used for fail over not >> > as
>> > multiple synchronized master databases.
>> >
>> > 2. Replicated server - replicated server can be used only for read >> > not
>> > for
>> > updates
>> >
>> > 3. Federated database design with distributed partitioned views - >> > but
>> > its
>> > difficult to split certain databases across servers due to >> > complexity
>> > and
>> > number of Foreign key constraints defined in the system.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for suggestions/help.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Suri.
>> >
>>
>>
>>




.

Relevant Pages