Re: Please help regarding the architecuture I am Planning for.

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

Will Data Partitioning help in this scenario?

What is 'this scenario'? It would help if you can be specific.

Linchi

"Shamshad Ali" wrote:

Furthermore,

Will Data Partitioning help in this scenario?
http://www.geocities.com/shamshad_ali74/SQLCluster.jpg

Can we have only data partitioning only implemented, will it work


"Shamshad Ali" <shamshad.ali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O3WmMuQ6JHA.2656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have one another design i implemented earlier. and that has more
maintenance costly so i thougth about the clustering; also it has some
drawbacks i mentioned in note below.
here we are moving online data to reporting/archivint database weekly,
some meintenance cost and overhead on other depending servers raise here.
also if Server A get down we lost replication with reporting and so on.

Can we merge this design with earlier one with HA and make some precised
solution? Please help

http://www.geocities.com/shamshad_ali74/p2p.jpg


Shamshad Ali



"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OoR3hPQ6JHA.5180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Merge replication does not achieve load balancing. The overhead for
merge
is usually close to the processing load the node would take directly. In
other words, the transactions still have to happen on all nodes. You
don't
get any scale-out benefits.

HA and Low maintenance are opposing concepts. You spend more time,
effort,
and energy on maintenance so the system spends more time processing
transactions. The actual maintenance windows are short, but planned very
heavily.

Scale-out as a native component of SQL Server does not exist.. Yet. I am
sure the team in Redmond is working on something that direction. When we
will see it in the retail product is the big question.

Right now, bigger boxes is the answer, not more boxes.

As for clustering Windows 2008 vs 2003, the benefits are way too numerous
to
list in a short answer. Lets just say I recommend 2008 absolutely for
clustering.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP





"Shamshad Ali" <shamshad.ali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CF89C746-96BA-4A6E-B95B-6363BB07E255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for your reply. I am new to clustering and never worked on it
before. Your suggestions would land me on right path.
What you suggest how can i achieve high availability with load
balancing,
low maintenance cost?
could you please guide me and suggest best option. I made some diagrams
could you plz. look them and understand my scenario to which i want to
have max. of throughput. and make corrections in design ?



Shamshad Ali.


"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ABFFD1C1-6ACF-486D-B948-D8383B3A09CC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is the rationale for having a six-node cluster with only three SQL
instances? You may be better off with three two-node clusters, and that
would
give you better isolation. But you have a specific reason for your
current
configuration.

Linchi

"Shamshad Ali" wrote:

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqltools/thread/7f0bc946-c9a4-48f9-a668-d14de245e267


We have clusterA with 6 Nodes, 3 active and 3 Passive, all passive
will
be
available for any active nodez for Failover. All online database
activity
will be done on this clusterA, then we have one another clusterB with
4
nodes, the database on ClusterA will setup merge replication with
ClusterB.
My question is:
1- Is Merge replication available on Cluster environment?
2- Is Table Partitioning possible on Cluster environment?
3- All three technologies can be gathered in to give High Performance
and
High Availability?
4- Also could you please tell me what is the advantage of using
windows
server 2008 cluster over windows server 2003


We will be doing some data level maintenance and updates (fixing data
changes from other database) on ClusterB and also the reports will be
served
from ClusterB. This will automatically give a Load Balancing
environment.

Please help me if this can be achieved or it might has any flaws. We
will
distribute Database level activity Load among two Clusters via
replication
and to face large tables we may us benefit from table partitioning.
How
it
would look like?

We have 100000 users online at a time and we have 0 downtime with max.
performance is target to achieve. Also the maintenance cost should be
considere3e as much we can reduced as possible.


You can find my designed architecture here:


http://www.geocities.com/shamshad_ali74/SQLCluster.jpg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/shamshad_ali74/SQLClusterMReplication.jpg

Please give your suggestion and thoughts ...

Shamshad Ali.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Please help regarding the architecuture I am Planning for.
    ... Can we merge this design with earlier one with HA and make some precised solution? ... HA and Low maintenance are opposing concepts. ... Scale-out as a native component of SQL Server does not exist.. ... will be done on this clusterA, then we have one another clusterB with 4 ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Please help regarding the architecuture I am Planning for.
    ... Will Data Partitioning help in this scenario? ... HA and Low maintenance are opposing concepts. ... Scale-out as a native component of SQL Server does not exist.. ... will be done on this clusterA, then we have one another clusterB with 4 ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Please help regarding the architecuture I am Planning for.
    ... Merge replication does not achieve load balancing. ... You spend more time, effort, and energy on maintenance so the system spends more time processing transactions. ... the database on ClusterA will setup merge replication with ClusterB. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)