<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
SQL Server 2005
»
Administering
»
ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005
19 posts, Page 1 of 2
1
2
»»
ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
viswanath09
viswanath09
Posted Monday, October 11, 2010 1:38 AM
SSC Journeyman
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:03 AM
Points: 82,
Visits: 123
Hi if any one knows ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005 disadvantages.
Please help me out.
Post #1001961
spaghettidba
spaghettidba
Posted Monday, October 11, 2010 1:49 AM
SSCarpal Tunnel
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:29 AM
Points: 4,804,
Visits: 8,067
Read this.
Get your two-cent-answer quickly
The Spaghetti DBA
Post #1001967
Schadenfreude-Mei
Schadenfreude-Mei
Posted Monday, October 11, 2010 4:32 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:40 AM
Points: 1,099,
Visits: 1,320
Essentially if you have two servers and want to leverage the most out of them you would use an active/active (if one fails the instance fails over to the second node and vice versa). Obviously this is good when everything is fine cause you get two servers, double the grunt and can share databases between the two.
Essentially what you will have are two active/pasive clusters (that fail to each other).
The situation gets better if you can have a third node which can be a shared passive notde for the two active nodes. BUT and heres the disadvantages: If you have a shared passive for both active nodes, what happens if they both failover to the passive? Can it handle the load? Remember to be part of a Windows cluster the hardware must be identicle, so following failover your active instances will be sharing 1 node so will have less the 50% of the resources they had.
We are in a fortunate position where investment for infrastructure has never been an issue. We have two active/passive clusters (2 seperate nodes per cluster) and a thrid node (per cluster) at SCF for database mirror failover.
Back to your questions: As i see it the disavantages with a/a are that it is not a high availability solutiion r ather a high performance solution. What happens in the case of a failure? What is acceptable to the business? Only you or your boss can answer these questions.
For my money, i'd rather have half the grunt but now i am protected! A/P all the way.
Hope this helps.
Adam Zacks
-------------------------------------------
Be Nice, Or Leave
Post #1002039
Markus
Markus
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:53 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:53 AM
Points: 1,046,
Visits: 2,210
Microsoft pushes Clustering as the next best thing to sliced bread. In my experience we have had more downtime with clusters than with a regular server. Clusters are very touchy and the smallest things can make them fail over. 100% CPU usage for a certain length of time can cause them to fail over... We have two active/passive clusters here and three active/active clusters here. Installing SQL 2008 in a clustered environment is a royal pain. I had so many problems just getting it installed I had to call support.
Post #1002704
Schadenfreude-Mei
Schadenfreude-Mei
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:08 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:40 AM
Points: 1,099,
Visits: 1,320
Markus (10/12/2010)
Microsoft pushes Clustering as the next best thing to sliced bread. In my experience we have had more downtime with clusters than with a regular server. Clusters are very touchy and the smallest things can make them fail over. 100% CPU usage for a certain length of time can cause them to fail over... We have two active/passive clusters here and three active/active clusters here. Installing SQL 2008 in a clustered environment is a royal pain. I had so many problems just getting it installed I had to call support.
Sorry to hear that. I'm afraid to say that your clusters have obviously not been configured or tuned correctly. Ours are bomb-proof!
Adam Zacks
-------------------------------------------
Be Nice, Or Leave
Post #1002718
Steve-3_5_7_9
Steve-3_5_7_9
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:50 AM
SSC Eights!
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:18 AM
Points: 810,
Visits: 1,192
I have to second the previous comment. We've been running clusters (Sql Server and Oracle) for years and the only time these clusters fail over is when we manually fail them over for patches. They have been solid.
For a few of our clusters, I run Active/Active and as said previously, you have to account for the scenario where both instances are running on the same node. Essentially you want to be sure to spec the servers properly. For example, we set max server memory for each instance to about 45% of the total memory.
Side Note:
There was a post here some time ago where someone dynamically configured the memory on failover/startup so they could use up to 90% of the memory when the sql instances were running on their separate nodes.
Post #1002755
Simon Facer
Simon Facer
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:07 AM
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:30 AM
Points: 1,566,
Visits: 600
In response to Markus's comment - we have many clusters, ranging from 2-node A/A clusters to a 6-node N+1 (N Active / 1 Passive) cluster for our SQL instances, and they all work very well, and are stable, the biggest issues we have are hardware related, not clustering. And, if your machines are running at very high CPU loads, your servers are probably underpowered, or you have runaway processes.
In response to Schadenfreude-Mei's comments (1)
to be part of a Windows cluster the hardware must be identicle
, No, the hardware doesnt have to identical across the cluster, it just has to be certified (for Win 2003 or earlier), or pass validation for Win 2008. (2)
disavantages with a/a are that it is not a high availability solutiion r ather a high performance solution
A/A clusters are still High-Availability, just with a extra risk that the remaining node may not be able to handle the load without degraded performance; to be a High-Performance solution, it would require a Load-Balancing cluster, not a Failover cluster.
The biggest issue you should watch for is if all nodes except 1 failed, could the remaining node handle all the instances. Benchmark the load (CPU / memory / IO), if you can, to get a good indication of the resulting load.
Post #1002771
TheSQLGuru
TheSQLGuru
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:20 AM
Hall of Fame
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:38 AM
Points: 3,573,
Visits: 5,109
A/A clusters are a good way to maximize hardware investment. One thing I advise my clients is to have a monitoring agent of some flavor trigger on a failover and automatically adjust the sql server max memory on BOTH systems to an appropriate value that totals to the amount an indivitual machine should take on the given hardware. This will avoid memory contention problems. I also advise being cautious with Lock Pages in Memory setting on these servers for same reason.
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru at GMail
Post #1002863
Perry Whittle
Perry Whittle
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:42 AM
SSCertifiable
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:47 AM
Points: 5,201,
Visits: 11,151
Markus (10/12/2010)
Microsoft pushes Clustering as the next best thing to sliced bread. In my experience we have had more downtime with clusters than with a regular server. Clusters are very touchy and the smallest things can make them fail over. 100% CPU usage for a certain length of time can cause them to fail over... We have two active/passive clusters here and three active/active clusters here.
I work with 3 different clusters at present and they all perform without issue, have you verified your cluster configurations?
Markus (10/12/2010)
Installing SQL 2008 in a clustered environment is a royal pain. I had so many problems just getting it installed I had to call support.
it's fine if you slipstream the SP1 during install time or create a merged drop installer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
Post #1002949
jamesn 89076
jamesn 89076
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:19 PM
Grasshopper
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:26 PM
Points: 11,
Visits: 110
TheSQLGuru (10/12/2010)
A/A clusters are a good way to maximize hardware investment. One thing I advise my clients is to have a monitoring agent of some flavor trigger on a failover and automatically adjust the sql server max memory on BOTH systems to an appropriate value that totals to the amount an indivitual machine should take on the given hardware. This will avoid memory contention problems. I also advise being cautious with Lock Pages in Memory setting on these servers for same reason.
Kevin, what type of monitoring agents are these that will automatically adjust the sql server max memory?
Post #1003337
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
19 posts, Page 1 of 2
1
2
»»
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
