load balancing & sql ?

can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
edition ?
i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
(sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
ScottIn the context of SQL Server, the question just doesn't make sense.
What are you 'load balancing'?
Load balancing is normally intended to direct traffic to one of multiple
servers -typically web servers. I would think that having a database in
multiple servers would create problems with data consistency, etc.
Perhaps if you told us a little more about what you are attempting to
accomplish, we can help direct you to the correct information.
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ePoYZryrGHA.4884@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
> edition ?
> i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
> (sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
> Scott
>|||thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott|||scott wrote:
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard editio
n
> for 30 users.
> Scott
>
>
There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
performance.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator|||...and bad SQL(locking/blocking) :-)
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:

> scott wrote:
> There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
> but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
> performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
> bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
> performance.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlüter Persson
> Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
>|||I can't imagine that you have a server for 30 users where a single GB NIC
will be 'overloaded', so the second one is mostly providing a 'safety net'.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard
> edition for 30 users.
> Scott
>|||excellent thanks for the replies
Scott

load balancing & sql ?

can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
edition ?
i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
(sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
ScottIn the context of SQL Server, the question just doesn't make sense.
What are you 'load balancing'?
Load balancing is normally intended to direct traffic to one of multiple
servers -typically web servers. I would think that having a database in
multiple servers would create problems with data consistency, etc.
Perhaps if you told us a little more about what you are attempting to
accomplish, we can help direct you to the correct information.
--
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ePoYZryrGHA.4884@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> can you use load balancing with a server running SQL server 2000 standard
> edition ?
> i.e is traffic balanced correctly ?
> (sorry if its a silly question - i just need to be sure).
> Scott
>|||thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
scott wrote:
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> for 30 users.
> Scott
>
>
There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
performance.
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
--050204090900090208000009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
scott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">thanks for reply.
I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
for 30 users.
Scott
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">There shouldn't be any problems in
having 2 network cards in the server, but I doubt it will make any
difference. In terms of load and performance, it's in my opinion never
the network cards that causes any bottleneck. It's your disk system and
your CPU/Memory that affects performance. <br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Regards<br>
Steen Schlüter Persson<br>
Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
--050204090900090208000009--|||...and bad SQL(locking/blocking) :-)
"Steen Persson (DK)" wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > thanks for reply.
> >
> > I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> > gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard edition
> > for 30 users.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> There shouldn't be any problems in having 2 network cards in the server,
> but I doubt it will make any difference. In terms of load and
> performance, it's in my opinion never the network cards that causes any
> bottleneck. It's your disk system and your CPU/Memory that affects
> performance.
>
> --
> Regards
> Steen Schlüter Persson
> Databaseadministrator / Systemadministrator
>|||I can't imagine that you have a server for 30 users where a single GB NIC
will be 'overloaded', so the second one is mostly providing a 'safety net'.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"scott" <aintnowspamhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23N1GXG8rGHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> thanks for reply.
> I should have explained more sorry. I simply meant in the context of two
> gigabit network cards in a server running sbs 2003 and sql standard
> edition for 30 users.
> Scott
>|||excellent thanks for the replies
Scott

load balanced scale out deployment issues

Hello,
I have a scale out deployment of Reporting Services consisting of 2 Report
Servers in a load balanced cluster using an F5 BigIP setup in RoundRobin
mode, and the report catalog db sits on on a separate sql server. We use a
vIP with a DNS name that hits the F5. The F5, in turn, is setup to "choose"
one of the 2 Report Servers using the machine name address. Note that this
is for an intranet.
We are not currently using HTTPS (SSL) in our environment, but eventually
we'll turn it on, so ignore that piece of the puzzle for this scenario.
When configuring the scale-out deployment, we followed the instructions on
the Books Online article "Configuring a Report Server Scale-out Deployment."
The last piece of this document instructs us to modify the
RSWebApplication.config file for all the servers in the scale out deployment,
setting the <ReportServerUrl> element to use the virtual server name (vIP
DNS, we assumed), instead of the machine name. However, this element did not
contain a value originally.
The next step was to modify the RSReportServer.config file, to set the
<UrlRoot> element with the virtual server name (again, vIP dns). UrlRoot's
original value as the url <servername>/reportserver.
Once this change was made, I reset IIS on both servers, and hit each
localhost's Report manager to fire up the applications. However, I received
the following error "ReportServerUrl Configuration element is not a valid
configuration..." on both Report Manager web apps.
Note that before we made the above change to ReportServerUrl and UrlRoot,
both servers worked fine. So, I went back in and removed the value from
ReportServerUrl, but left the UrlRoot with the vIP name. Reset IIS, and the
error went away!
I am a little confused as to what these two settings are used for, since the
original value of ReportServerUrl was blank (UrlRoot actually had the machine
name address).
Could someone explain the cause of this error, and suggest a best practice
for this scenario. I would like to use the most efficient configuration
between the Report Servers and the F5 load balancer, and what other changes
would we be looking at once we turn on SSL?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Thiago Silvabtw, this is using SSRS 2005 (Enterprise Edition, of course, since it's a web
farm).
--
Regards,
"HC" wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a scale out deployment of Reporting Services consisting of 2 Report
> Servers in a load balanced cluster using an F5 BigIP setup in RoundRobin
> mode, and the report catalog db sits on on a separate sql server. We use a
> vIP with a DNS name that hits the F5. The F5, in turn, is setup to "choose"
> one of the 2 Report Servers using the machine name address. Note that this
> is for an intranet.
> We are not currently using HTTPS (SSL) in our environment, but eventually
> we'll turn it on, so ignore that piece of the puzzle for this scenario.
> When configuring the scale-out deployment, we followed the instructions on
> the Books Online article "Configuring a Report Server Scale-out Deployment."
> The last piece of this document instructs us to modify the
> RSWebApplication.config file for all the servers in the scale out deployment,
> setting the <ReportServerUrl> element to use the virtual server name (vIP
> DNS, we assumed), instead of the machine name. However, this element did not
> contain a value originally.
> The next step was to modify the RSReportServer.config file, to set the
> <UrlRoot> element with the virtual server name (again, vIP dns). UrlRoot's
> original value as the url <servername>/reportserver.
> Once this change was made, I reset IIS on both servers, and hit each
> localhost's Report manager to fire up the applications. However, I received
> the following error "ReportServerUrl Configuration element is not a valid
> configuration..." on both Report Manager web apps.
> Note that before we made the above change to ReportServerUrl and UrlRoot,
> both servers worked fine. So, I went back in and removed the value from
> ReportServerUrl, but left the UrlRoot with the vIP name. Reset IIS, and the
> error went away!
> I am a little confused as to what these two settings are used for, since the
> original value of ReportServerUrl was blank (UrlRoot actually had the machine
> name address).
> Could someone explain the cause of this error, and suggest a best practice
> for this scenario. I would like to use the most efficient configuration
> between the Report Servers and the F5 load balancer, and what other changes
> would we be looking at once we turn on SSL?
> Thanks!
> --
> Regards,
> Thiago Silva