two web servers, both dual 2.4 4 gb, going into two sql servers 1st is dual 1.8 4 gb three raid 1 (os, data, freetext catalogs) 2nd sql box (still being built) dual 1gig piii 2 gb ram some raid

The database in question is about 5 gb in size, and we have some shitty tables (can't redesign) and some poor queries (probably can't re-do in the near future)

The idea for this bit of code was to shove load on to the other box when things got too slow, or it went tits up
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Tony Weeg
  To: CF-Talk
  Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:31 PM
  Subject: RE: Peer Review - Load Balancing

  ok, that makes sense...
  your first answer i would imagine,
  would be on the scale of hotmail or something like
  that.

  okay, that makes more sense....thats
  1.67 to 2.5 - per sec, ok, thats really not much load...that
  i would begin to think about scaling, what kinda machine
  is this on? speed/ram?

  tw

  -----Original Message-----
  From: admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:26 PM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: Re: Peer Review - Load Balancing

  oops that should be per min not sec !
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Tony Weeg
    To: CF-Talk
    Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:16 PM
    Subject: RE: Peer Review - Load Balancing

    well, blow me down, damn, what kinda app runs that many sql
    transactions?
    im sure there are many, but i wonder what kinda app runs that?

    tony

    -----Original Message-----
    From: admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:13 PM
    To: CF-Talk
    Subject: Re: Peer Review - Load Balancing

    Hi Tony.

    Good point, we run about 500-1500 per sec, but we are also very cheap
  so
    a hardware solution is out.

    The overhead of a trivial transaction should be minimal, and I though
    this code might do an automatic failover.

    Cheers

    Richard
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Tony Weeg
      To: CF-Talk
      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:02 PM
      Subject: RE: Peer Review - Load Balancing

      im not sure i understand the point.

      you, seem to creating more overhead in the process.
      how many transactions do you predict will be hitting
      the sql servers?  what size are the machines, cpu/ram?

      just wondering.

      i work in an environment that gets hit with transactional
      processing at a rate of about 25-40 records per second
      being processed.  

      ONE MACHINE :)  now, if you are expecting more than this,
      well, i cant speak about it.

      but on the same note, wouldnt some sort of hardware load
      balancing or a sql server cluster make more sense?

      tony

      -----Original Message-----
      From: admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:53 PM
      To: CF-Talk
      Subject: Peer Review - Load Balancing

      I slapped together some code to provide a very simple load balance
      system for coldfusion servers that are using sql on other boxes.

      I would appreciate if the experts on this list could have a look at
    the
      code (it can be found at
      http://www.y2kinternet.com/timetest/timetest.zip  ) and make any
      suggestions, positive and negative about the code and the concept.

      Cheers

      Richard

      p.s.

      I'm a lousy sql and coldfusion programmer !


[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to