June 17, 2002 at 5:12 am
Hello,
after some testing and reading I'm not shure which is the best Client connectivity to my SQL2000 Cluster with 3 named instances - Named Pipes or TCP/IP.
Any suggestions or further readings?
Thanks a lot!
Rainer
June 17, 2002 at 5:25 am
hi from bol:
In a fast local area network (LAN) environment, Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Sockets and Named Pipes clients are comparable in terms of performance. However, the performance difference between the TCP/IP Sockets and Named Pipes clients becomes apparent with slower networks, such as across wide area networks (WANs) or dial-up networks. This is because of the different ways the interprocess communication (IPC) mechanisms communicate between peers.
For named pipes, network communications are typically more interactive. A peer does not send data until another peer asks for it using a read command. A network read typically involves a series of peek named pipes messages before it begins to read the data. These can be very costly in a slow network and cause excessive network traffic, which in turn affects other network clients.
It is also important to clarify if you are talking about local pipes or network pipes. If the server application is running locally on the computer running an instance of Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2000, the local Named Pipes protocol is an option. Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and is extremely fast.
For TCP/IP Sockets, data transmissions are more streamlined and have less overhead. Data transmissions can also take advantage of TCP/IP Sockets performance enhancement mechanisms such as windowing, delayed acknowledgements, and so on, which can be very beneficial in a slow network. Depending on the type of applications, such performance differences can be significant.
TCP/IP Sockets also support a backlog queue, which can provide a limited smoothing effect compared to named pipes that may lead to pipe busy errors when you are attempting to connect to SQL Server.
In general, sockets are preferred in a slow LAN, WAN, or dial-up network, whereas named pipes can be a better choice when network speed is not the issue, as it offers more functionality, ease of use, and configuration options.
For more information about TCP/IP, see the Microsoft Windows NT® documentation.
June 17, 2002 at 5:25 am
TCP/IP has the least network overhead and can be implemented on any machine with IP installed. With named pipes you have to either have an LMHOST entry on each machine or a WINS server that those machines talk to to get the location of the named server (this is the biggest hassle).
"Don't roll your eyes at me. I will tape them in place." (Teacher on Boston Public)
June 17, 2002 at 5:52 am
thanks for your replies.
Normaly I would have thought that tcp/ip is faster because of less Overhead.
But after testing I found that named pipes are on some connections 10 to 30 times faster and on some clients a bit slower.
regards
Rainer
June 17, 2002 at 6:20 am
Small point, but you do not need WINS with Windows 2000 unless you're running a cluster. (You need it for a cluster because the cluster needs to dynamically change the virtual server name/ip number mappings in a manner not provided for by DNS.)
In fact, W2K will run fine with NetBIOS off for the entire LAN. The only drawback is 3rd. party apps that don't know how to browse the active directory, and try to get namelists from the "Computer Browser" service. A good example of this is BackupExec.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply