 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / January 2005Transition from Stand-ALone SQL Server to Cluster
Hello Everyone, Here is my situation: I have stand alone sql server 2000 and with 2 databases. Unfortunately that server, which was supposed to be able to handle the workload of both database and database apps, is not able to do so. So I am looking into setting up something to distribute the workload between more servers. I have two other servers coming along my way, as well as a SAN system for the storage of the SQL Data. So I am wondering if SQL clustering would be useful in this situation and, if so, what would I be looking at in configuring these servers? Right now, I am just in the designing and planning stage, so I can change hardware and storage design if necessary. Thank you for your time. Hi A Cluster is for high availability and not load balancing a single instance. If you can put one DB on each node, you have a solution. If they have to run on the same node, it won't help performance. Make sure your hardware is on the Windows HCL for clustering, otherwise you will just have a lot of trouble. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/reliable.asp Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > Hello Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thank you for your time. Thanks for the info. So I am in the wrong forum... Should I just head over to the Network Load Balancing forum then? Thanks again! Hi SQL Server does not support network load balancing. Once one instance can work against a database at any one time. What are your exact requirements? What is your server load, how big are your databases? Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > Thanks for the info. So I am in the wrong forum... Should I just head over > to the Network Load Balancing forum then? Thanks again! Here's what we have currently: Dual Hyperthread Xeons @ 2.8 GHZ 2 GB or RAM 147 GB 15k SCSI U320 HDD This single server can easily take care of the load and size requiments for one of the databases. However, when we run the second database and custom app for it, the performance levels on both apps drop severely. Plus, as we quickly realized, our disk space would need to expand exponentially. We will need around 1.5 terabytes to store our data for the second database and its app. I was considering purchasing a dual-processor 3.4 GHZ Xeon with 4 GB of RAM. I was also going to purchase a SAN storage solution: http://www.qlogic.com/simplify/sckwinserv.asp - Fiber Channel Kit http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/disk/ds/ds400/index.html - IBM TotalStorage DS400 as well as 13x 147GB 10k U320 SCSI drives to put into it; this should solve my storage problems. That is all the information I can give at this moment. If you need anything else, please let me know. Thanks again! Perhaps you should first look at what the bottleneck is. Is it memory? CPU? Disk? It is possible that by adding the components that you're lacking, you don't need two servers. As Mike said, clusters are for high availability, not performance. I'd certainly start with adding memory. SQL Server loves memory like I like a rack of BBQ ribs. ;-)  SignatureTom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Columnist, SQL Server Professional Toronto, ON Canada www.pinnaclepublishing.com . Here's what we have currently: Dual Hyperthread Xeons @ 2.8 GHZ 2 GB or RAM 147 GB 15k SCSI U320 HDD This single server can easily take care of the load and size requiments for one of the databases. However, when we run the second database and custom app for it, the performance levels on both apps drop severely. Plus, as we quickly realized, our disk space would need to expand exponentially. We will need around 1.5 terabytes to store our data for the second database and its app. I was considering purchasing a dual-processor 3.4 GHZ Xeon with 4 GB of RAM. I was also going to purchase a SAN storage solution: http://www.qlogic.com/simplify/sckwinserv.asp - Fiber Channel Kit http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/disk/ds/ds400/index.html - IBM TotalStorage DS400 as well as 13x 147GB 10k U320 SCSI drives to put into it; this should solve my storage problems. That is all the information I can give at this moment. If you need anything else, please let me know. Thanks again! We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for possibly purchasing the SAN kit. And I was thinking that a seperate server will help minimize any conflicts between the two databases. Our current server has a huge pagefile (plus a severe performance drop) and very little physical memory (only a few megabytes) available when both programs are run simultaneously. When only the first database and app is run, we have plenty of physical memory (about 1 GB free) and the pagefile use drops dramatically. So then I concluded that the second database/app is the culprit for drop in performance and we need a heftier server for that database/app. Thanks for the help! And BBQ ribs are good... ;-) Dark_15, I think you missing what the guys are trying to tell you. Let me try and restate things as I see them: Facts: 1) You need more disk space for the new app, lots of space. 2) A SAN would indeed give you the needed disk space. 3) The current machine does not have the needed disk space for the new app. 4) You need more RAM to run the new app, lots of RAM, though the exact amount is known, due to excessive paging in the current config. 5) Adding more RAM or a moving to a new machine with lots of RAM would solve the need for more RAM. 6) The current machine does not have the needed RAM for the new app. 7) Clustering is for High Availability and as such will not help with facts 1-6. 8) Clustering requires running Enterprise Edition of SQL & Windows, and as such is more expensive. 9) You don't ever need to cluster to gain better performance. 10) A second machine, attached to a new large SAN, with lots of RAM, and two fast CPU's will work nicely. The new app will love the RAM, CPU's and disk space. I hope this clears things up. You really have not stated anything that makes think you need to cluster SQL. Cheers, Rod MVP - Windows Server - Clustering http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog > We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for > possibly [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And BBQ ribs are good... ;-) Hi What about separating the application from the DB? Running an application server and DB on the same machine does not help performance as both processes contend for the same resources. Turning your infrastructure into true multi-tier might help. If your application has to run on the DB server, you have a bad application and slap your vendor. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for possibly > purchasing the SAN kit. And I was thinking that a seperate server will help [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And BBQ ribs are good... ;-) I couldn't agree more. If your middle tier is slow, then throwing more servers at it will help. However, there is only one database server and it should be capable of handling just the database loads you put on it. As Rodney said, give it the disk and RAM resources it needs to do the job. SignatureTom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Columnist, SQL Server Professional Toronto, ON Canada www.pinnaclepublishing.com . Hi What about separating the application from the DB? Running an application server and DB on the same machine does not help performance as both processes contend for the same resources. Turning your infrastructure into true multi-tier might help. If your application has to run on the DB server, you have a bad application and slap your vendor. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for possibly > purchasing the SAN kit. And I was thinking that a seperate server will help > minimize any conflicts between the two databases. > > Our current server has a huge pagefile (plus a severe performance drop) and > very little physical memory (only a few megabytes) available when both > programs are run simultaneously. When only the first database and app is > run, we have plenty of physical memory (about 1 GB free) and the pagefile use > drops dramatically. So then I concluded that the second database/app is the > culprit for drop in performance and we need a heftier server for that > database/app. > > Thanks for the help! > > And BBQ ribs are good... ;-) Sorry, I've been out for a bit... I hate to go off on a tangent in the wrong group, but let me see if this is what you are saying: Use the existing server (Server A): Dual Hyperthread Xeons @ 2.8 GHZ 2 GB of RAM 147 GB 15k SCSI U320 HDD Plus make 2 new servers: Server B: Dual Hyperthread 3.4 GHZ Xeon 2 GB of RAM 36 GB 15k RPM SCSI Server C: Dual Hyperthread 3.4 GHZ Xeon 4 GB of RAM 36 GB 15k RPM SCSI On Server A, install the OS (Windows Server 2003 presumably) and the least stressful application. On Server B, install the OS and the most stressful application. On Server C, install the OS and SQL 2000. Purchase the SAN Kit to store all the actual data and have each machine connected to it for quick response. Here are the specs on the SAN idea I am thinking about implementing: http://www.qlogic.com/simplify/sck3000.asp - Fiber Channel Kit http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/disk/ds/ds400/index.html - IBM TotalStorage DS400 13x 147GB 10k U320 SCSI Does that sound good? And then if I want something to ensure that we will not have downtime on the SQL server, head back here for help with Clustering? Oh and almost forgot: slap my software vendor... :-) Thank you very much everyone! Why does your app need so much disk? Shouldn't that go for tour database server? SignatureTom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA SQL Server MVP Columnist, SQL Server Professional Toronto, ON Canada www.pinnaclepublishing.com . Sorry, I've been out for a bit... I hate to go off on a tangent in the wrong group, but let me see if this is what you are saying: Use the existing server (Server A): Dual Hyperthread Xeons @ 2.8 GHZ 2 GB of RAM 147 GB 15k SCSI U320 HDD Plus make 2 new servers: Server B: Dual Hyperthread 3.4 GHZ Xeon 2 GB of RAM 36 GB 15k RPM SCSI Server C: Dual Hyperthread 3.4 GHZ Xeon 4 GB of RAM 36 GB 15k RPM SCSI On Server A, install the OS (Windows Server 2003 presumably) and the least stressful application. On Server B, install the OS and the most stressful application. On Server C, install the OS and SQL 2000. Purchase the SAN Kit to store all the actual data and have each machine connected to it for quick response. Here are the specs on the SAN idea I am thinking about implementing: http://www.qlogic.com/simplify/sck3000.asp - Fiber Channel Kit http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/disk/ds/ds400/index.html - IBM TotalStorage DS400 13x 147GB 10k U320 SCSI Does that sound good? And then if I want something to ensure that we will not have downtime on the SQL server, head back here for help with Clustering? Oh and almost forgot: slap my software vendor... :-) Thank you very much everyone! No, it doesn't. But since the drive is in there (and working), I am not going to mess with it. It is more of a case of "If it is not broke, don't fix it". Also, it is a bit different drive than what I have in my SAN and for the sake of keeping everything the same, I am not going to add that to the SAN. > We do need more space. A LOT more space, which was the reason for possibly > purchasing the SAN kit. And I was thinking that a seperate server will help [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > culprit for drop in performance and we need a heftier server for that > database/app. BTW, one of the things I'd look at is the disk queue length. You want that as low as possible. If I read your original description correctly, all this is running on a SINGLE SCSI drive? That's going to really kill performance, probably long before CPU. Given all the other threads, the SAN is definitely a good idea. The more spindles you can allocate to SQL Server the better. Put your logs on one set, your data on another, keep OS local. Plan for redundancy at this point also. And I'd get 4 gig of RAM in all your machines, not 2. In fact I'd probably be tempted to go with a slightly slower CPU if the budget is tight and you can only afford one or the other. > Thanks for the help! > > And BBQ ribs are good... ;-) Apparantley, yes. That wasn't my call (it was our vendor who recommended the first server to us), but after we had so many problems I decided to look into things myself. And that is why I am here now. All I can say is from what little I knew about SQL and server performance before, I know just a little more now... just enough to make sure never make a misake like that again. Thank you everyone for your help! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.