Re: load balancing question
From: Eric Sabine (mopar41_at_hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com)
Date: 08/20/04
- Next message: Narayana Vyas Kondreddi: "Re: DTS Package"
- Previous message: Cindy: "Re: DTS Package"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: load balancing question"
- Next in thread: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Reply: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:00:03 -0400
It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I can't
explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not the entire
server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send traffic to this
IP/Port".
But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that can't be load
balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances communicating with the same
MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
RP wrote:
> Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad experience
> with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to implement an NLB
> solution and I would like to know what to expect here and whether it
> is the right solution. Could it be the rules on NLB Manager were
> misconfigured and that is why it still sent traffic to the server
> that was down? Also was the server totally down or was it up but just
> IIS was down?
>
> thanks!
>
> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
>> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a
>> shared folder to another server? I don't think that works. Even if
>> it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see
>> some corruption due to network latency.
>>
>> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
>> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it
>> was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
>> server that was up.
>>
>> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
>> Standard edition.
>>
>> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>> would pickup."
>> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
>>
>> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates.
>> I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost
>> alternative to clustering.
>>
>> hth
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> RP wrote:
>>> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
>>> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
>>> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a
>>> standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have
>>> decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to
>>> set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were
>>> there any downsides to this architecture.
>>>
>>> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
>>> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
>>> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
>>> Server
>>> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
>>> Server.
>>>
>>> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>>> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to
>>> go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> thanks a bunch!
- Next message: Narayana Vyas Kondreddi: "Re: DTS Package"
- Previous message: Cindy: "Re: DTS Package"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: load balancing question"
- Next in thread: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Reply: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
