Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005


ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005

Author
Message
viswanath09
viswanath09
SSC Journeyman
SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)SSC Journeyman (82 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 82 Visits: 124
Hi if any one knows ACtive-ACtive Clustering SQL server 2005 disadvantages.

Please help me out.
spaghettidba
spaghettidba
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5732 Visits: 13305
Read this.

--
Gianluca Sartori

How to post T-SQL questions
spaghettidba.com
@spaghettidba
Schadenfreude-Mei
Schadenfreude-Mei
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1129 Visits: 1336
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
Markus
Markus
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1587 Visits: 3679
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.



Schadenfreude-Mei
Schadenfreude-Mei
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1129 Visits: 1336
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
Steve-3_5_7_9
Steve-3_5_7_9
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)SSC Eights! (982 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 982 Visits: 1584
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.



Simon Facer
Simon Facer
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1587 Visits: 724
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.



TheSQLGuru
TheSQLGuru
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5998 Visits: 8314
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
Perry Whittle
Perry Whittle
SSCrazy Eights
SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.8K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 8815 Visits: 16560
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" ;-)
jamesn 89076
jamesn 89076
Grasshopper
Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)Grasshopper (11 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
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?
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search