Whats better, Clustered Server or Stand Alone Server?
-
Hi again,
I have a question, i have on work 2 servers sql, one for aplication, and another for tests, this cenario is good or can be better if i make a clustered server join both areas in 2 instances?
-
Depends a lot on what your business needs and can afford.
Clustering provides high-availability. In other words, the loss of an entire computer, doesn't bring you down. However, it is more expensive. It requires Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. It also requires SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. If you run 2 instances on a cluster, you will need to make 2 SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition purchases. If you don't go with a cluster, you can use Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003 Server as well as SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (though you will still need 2 sets of licenses).
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
Hey bkelley,
Thanks for reply!
In my work i already have 2 licenses of Windows 2000 ADV Server and SQL 2000 ENT
, i have 2 servers with raid 1,0 with 1 gb RAM each, the first server is for tests
, the other is for the Production
.My question is about performance, its better let test server in a stand lone server, or make a cluster with 2 instances (Test/Production)?
-
Hello,
With equal servers, you should see roughly the same preformance if you are using an Active/Active cluster (one instance of SQL normally runs on Server A, and the second instance runs on Server B. They only run on the same physical server in a hardware failure situation).
Keep in mind that you also need 'shared' storage - something like a stand alone enterprise RAID Array. I used the Compaq (now HP) Raid arrays like the HSG, HSZ, EMA, and EVA stuff. It's not cheap at all. The reason for this is that if Server A fails, the disks used by SQL Server must be mounted on Server B in order for it to resstart the failed SQL Virtual Server.
If you don't have any experience with Clustering, it's a bit of a learning curve, but it can be well worth it!
Chris
-
Hi again,
If i make a cluster i don't gain better performance with load balance of windows 2000 ADV?
Reading White Papers in technet i see in somewhere if i build a load balacend servers, i got a protection of hardware failure and got performance because i sharing the hardware of 2 servers, its right?
I read i need 4 Networks Adapter, 2 for servers connect on Switch, 2 in crossover mode for the loadbalance work in realtime with sharing hardware.
-
I think you're confusing clustered servers (for fault-tolerance) with federated servers (for performance).
Quote from BOL:
"SQL Server 2000 does not support a load-balancing form of clustering for building a database services tier, but it does support a mechanism that can be used to partition data across a group of autonomous servers."
Federated servers allow you to partition large tables across multiple servers. Extra effort is required to create partitioned views on all participating servers for each table, but if done right it is very effective.
Replication would allow you to have a copy of a database on multiple servers, but you would need a mechanism outside of SQL Server to distribute connections among them. The simplest case would be to use the original database for updates and a replicated copy for lookups. Updatable replicated databases require some extra effort to make sure each server uses a different numeric range for identity fields for new records. Replication does not require any advanced licensing.
-
Thanks for the Info Scott
, i think i'm confusing the things.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply