Re: Active/Active/Passive cluster Newb question...

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"Christos" <Christos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C90C22DD-42FF-433C-B13F-9FF5DCCD52D7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2 for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance, should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Building high available and high performance web sites with MS
    ... clustering is just for failover? ... Would have lets say 3 servers, ... have 3 sql servers with the same info and then a high available distributer. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: BizTalk Clusters
    ... This suggests that FTP requires clustering, but that a File adapter can be ... scaled out in a BizTalk Group with no mention of possible issues. ... you were talking about two BizTalk servers that were not in the same BizTalk ... Services lend themselves very well to load balancing, ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)
  • Re: NLB or Clustering (Terminal Servers)
    ... how to install and configure Network Load Balancing for Windows Terminal ... This is primarily accomplished through clustering." ... >> Should these servers be deployed in a cluster or would I be better off ... > Session Directory and Load Balancing Using Terminal Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Want to load balance and cluster 3 SQL 2005 servers
    ... So how could I load balance the servers? ... SQL instance is the right approach. ... Clustering nodes, ... I'm guessing I need to set up Network Load Balancing in order to load ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • IDS cluster
    ... also clustering the servers. ... The only failover I know, ... clustering possible on Linux? ...
    (comp.databases.informix)