Re: active active vs active passive

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

I got this as a solution on database level work.
due you think following will work? and scale the application?

2). You can use two node active/active cluster and divide the database into
two database and then install them on each cluster node . e.g install the
first half of database to default instance on first node and other half on
named server on second node , now if one of the node goes done it will fail
over to other . In this way you will get scalability and high availability.
But this approach need database level changes.

Shamshad Ali.


"Shamshad Ali" <shamshad.ali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:09E5F9A6-5C69-4559-970A-77A3FDF50420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Assuming I have 6 NODES, 3 Active, 3 Passive.

Active: Node1, Node3 & Node5
--------------------------------
Passive: Node2, Node4 & Node6

If I distribute my heavy activity tables in Node3 and Node 5 and keep my lookup tables on Node1. By dividing them into 3 databases.
May I gain the load balancing in this manner?

Shamshad Ali

"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1EFC01FD-5682-44AE-BE00-515B89F67848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No, the nodes cannot share the workload in the sense of the traditional
dynamic load balancing. They must be running different SQL instances. If you
can distribute your workload among multiple SQL instances, fine and you can
achieve some type of 'static' load balancing. Otherwise, the instances are
not related other than the fact they share the same Windows failover cluster.

The key benefit is consolidation in that you can make them all work in stead
of keeping a node idle, and even when each node has an instance running, you
still achieve some level of protection in that if a node fails, the SQL
instance running on that node can fail over to some other node and continue
to run. Yes, if that other node already has an instance running, there can be
a performance issue when you now have two instances running on the node. But
that becomes a capacity planning issue.

Linchi

"Shamshad Ali" wrote:

If we configure 3 nodes in SQL Cluster and keep all active, will these all
nodes work simultaneously, i mean will it share the client's request and all
nodes work togather as load balancing between nodes and share the load among
nodes?

what is the benefit and use of active active terminology?
If i have 6 nodes i would keep all of them active so that they all work
togather and share work load among nodes? is that true?


Please help.

Shamshad Ali.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: active active vs active passive
    ... "Shamshad Ali" wrote: ... You can use two node active/active cluster and divide the database into ... > May I gain the load balancing in this manner? ... Yes, if that other node already has an instance running, there ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: active active vs active passive
    ... "Shamshad Ali" wrote: ... You can use two node active/active cluster and divide the database into ... May I gain the load balancing in this manner? ... of keeping a node idle, and even when each node has an instance running, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: Network Load Balancing
    ... Clustering is high availability and not load balancing. ... As only one node can own a database at a time, ... Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: SQL load balancing/replication - newbie question
    ... Data will appear in one database before it makes it to the ... You want to configure your load balancing solution with "sticky" ... Server, they remain on that SQL Server until the connection is terminated. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Security Admin
    ... db_accessadmin at the database level. ... administer all server and database access to users except ... members of sysadmin and db_owner ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)