June 15, 2003 at 10:09 pm
What is better from a performance standpoint - an Active\Active cluster or Active\Passive?
Which one allows for easier scalability?(i.e. put another server in the cluster to handle load)
June 15, 2003 at 10:23 pm
Hi there
Actually, its nothing to do with performance, unless your talking "cutover" performance? on server failure. Only one server at any one time can accept and process connections and their DDL/DML against the clustered datbase, so wether its active/active or active/passive is irrelevent for raw performance (unlike oracle). The key benefit of active/active is offloading reporting to another node.
Perhaps ive missed something in your question?
Cheers
Ck
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
June 16, 2003 at 3:15 am
From a financial perspective Active/Passive is cheaper as the licensing is for the Active instance.
June 16, 2003 at 4:32 am
Windows Load Balancing with an Active/Active setup can increase efficiency from the user perspective simple because you have both nodes under use (although I have seen WLB favoring one node over another).
June 16, 2003 at 5:51 am
I want to be able to have both nodes active at the same time and be able to load balance.
What is WLB?
June 16, 2003 at 7:38 am
Hi
If your talking a "SQL Server" (aka database) cluster, you cant, simple as that. Only one server at a time.
If your talking webservers or app servers, you can:
a) Use NLBS, all nodes are 'active'
b) Use CLBS (com load balancing service) for the application tier - i wouldnt though
See my free chapter @ http://www.chriskempster.com on high availability re a) and b).
Cheers
Ck
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
June 16, 2003 at 8:14 am
I read with an active/active two node cluster, each database server acts independently and can server data. When a failover occurs, then the "instance" from the failed server runs on the other server.
June 16, 2003 at 8:44 am
Oops, sorry got out of the SQL frame of mind there.
June 16, 2003 at 9:35 am
?
June 16, 2003 at 8:13 pm
What are most people runnning - active/active or active/passive and why?
June 16, 2003 at 8:21 pm
Hi
Did you read my sample chapter? I highly recommend it.
I would say most run an active/active. I would run say the reporting DB (logshipped or a nighly copy refreshed) on one and the live oltp db on the other, this is a classic senario. The issue here is more to do with sql server licencing (need seperate OS and DB licences for both nodes). It would be a shame to have spent the cash on two nodes just to have the other sit there and wait for a failure which (to be honest), rarely happens in many cases (or have I just been really lucky!!??)
Cheers
Ck
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
June 17, 2003 at 3:15 am
One of our apps uses several databases. We use a 2-nodes active/active cluster with one instance of SQLServer on each node, and the various databases balanced between the 2 nodes (call it "static" load-balancing). In case of a hardware failure of one node, the instance goes on the 2nd server, providing failover protection.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply