Re: load balancing question
From: RP (rp_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/20/04
- Next message: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Previous message: David G.: "Re: strange sql-server login problem"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Next in thread: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Reply: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:38:19 -0400
Andrew, thanks for the MSKB. So I guess that option is ruled out. Well I can
have a standby server, but manual switching of configuration files is
something I dont want to do. I would rather have the standby server pickup
automatically and then I can work on the primary server to bring it back up.
What other options do I have here without having to go to SQLEE & Windows
Advanced Server Clustering. Are there any cost-effective database
replication software out there that can keep the the standby server in sync
with the primary?
thanks!
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23xD5AhshEHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server unless
the
> two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a standby server but you
> don't need NLB for that you can simply change the way the clients are
> pointing and redirect them to the other server when the first is down.
You
> should also reconsider using NAS for your SQL Server files as it is
> basically unsupported except for one specific condition and the DELL
> solution is not it. See here for more info:
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>
> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > 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: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Previous message: David G.: "Re: strange sql-server login problem"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: load balancing question"
- Next in thread: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Reply: Eric Sabine: "Re: load balancing question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
