HI, Its always worth it ( imho ).
A year or more ago we went from an aging dual-core machine as our SQL server to a dual quad-core SQL 2005 64bit cluster. Its reliable and blindingly fast. I recall a certain report that took 15 minutes reduce to about 30 seconds. Having 32gig ram per server helped too.. our entire database is in ram. I am not an expert in this stuff so I probably get the terminology wrong and am not the best person to ask. Pretty sure its an Active-Active cluster.... eg There are servers named BILLDB1 and BILLDB2 but we only know it as <appname>LIVESQL. I recall once a windows update had hung the machine and it had failed-over to the 2nd node. We never noticed that it had and didn't know until someone in my server-room called to say.. Its expensive to set-up, but we can't afford to have staff sitting around doing nothing during a technical problem. I am clustering CF next.... just need someone to pay for CF licences. >>> "Barry Beattie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13/10/2008 10:38 am >>> @Scott Thornton "Also clustering sql server for the ultimate in redundancy." if someone was after hot-swapping from a primary to a back-up machine, would clustering those two (and ensuring neither hits over 50% use) get the same thing? (ie: is it worth it just for two?) (this is putting aside the question of licenses) On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Steve Onnis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My network is gigabit so i am hoping it wont be too bad. The database > server is currently on a different system to the web server anyway. What i > am wanting to know is if the data is written to the MDF file as quickly as > it would if it was on the same physical system as the sql server itself, or > if there is a delay. > > I mean redundant as in like a seconday mail server, but sql server. If one > sql server goes down, the other one will kick in and take over. > > Stee > > -----Original Message----- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Scott Thornton > Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 8:24 AM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT : SQL server over a network > > > HI, > > There will be an inherent delay in DB access across a network. It will only > be as fast as the slowest piece of your network. > > That's why we put our DB databases on disks in a SAN, all connected up with > gigabit ethernet. Pretty much next to the database server in a rack. > > What do you mean redundant server? You may like to check out the terms > "Replication" and "Log Shipping" for making hot-standby by copies of your > database. Also clustering sql server for the ultimate in redundancy. > > Scott Thornton, Programmer > Billing Unit, Hunter-New England Area Health Service > ext: 51762 p: +61 02 491 51762 m: 0413 800 242 > > >>>> "Steve Onnis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/10/2008 10:39 pm >>> > Hey guys > > Just curioud to know if anyone knows if there is a delay between data being > written to an MSSQL data file or if it is immediate. I am looking at > storing the SQL data files across a network on a file server and just > wanting to try and find out any issues this would cause if something was to > happen and the sql server died. Would the data be current or is there a > latency between actions and writing the data out. > > Also, if anyone knows of any places to find out how to set up redundant SQL > servers, or if anyone has done it them or even if its possible. > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
