IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
There's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approaches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually splitting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancing.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
>
|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>
Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Load balancing
IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approaches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually splitting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancing.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approaches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually splitting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancing.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive clusering
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>
Load balancing
IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to on
e
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approa
ches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually spl
itting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancin
g.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluserin
g
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>
e
database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
Is active /Active clustering give these feature
How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluseringThere's no transparent load balancing for SQL Server. for more manual approa
ches, look into things
like "distributed partitioned view", replication, and of course manually spl
itting the data into two
databases one on each server. Clustering is for fail over, not load balancin
g.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive cluserin
g
>|||> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
SQL Server clustering is built on the shared-nothing model, meaning that no
resource is shared between the nodes of the cluster at the same time. You
may hear peopel talking about a shared disk in a cluster. The term 'shared'
in that context just means that the cluster nodes can take turn
accessing/using the disk.
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
Fundamentally, there is no difference between active/active and
active/passive. Loosely, people use ther term 'active/active' to mean that
both nodes (assuming a two-node cluster) are running SQL Server instances.
But these are different instances, thus managing different databases. And
the term 'active/passive' generally means that one node is not being used at
any given time, and is kept as a standby. In case the SQL instance(s)
running on the other node (i.e. the active node) runs into any problem, the
cluster service will start the SQL instance on this node, taking over the
rsources and making it active and the other passive (if it's available at
all). But there is absolutely no difference in terms of how the clutser
service decides to fail over a resource--including the SQL resoruces.
Some people prefer to use terms like single instance and multiple instances
instead of active/passive and active/active. But the latter seem to be more
intuitive to a lot of people.
Linchi
"sunil" <sunil@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223B5636-6457-4A31-988E-7A1D32870624@.microsoft.com...
> IS any way i can unable load balancing, Like i have two server poining to
> one
> database on SAN and share the CPU and memory .
> Is active /Active clustering give these feature
> How can be active/active clustering differnet from active/passive
> clusering
>
Monday, March 26, 2012
LiveStats.XSP Maintenance Daemon Problem
I am running Livestats.XSP 7.5 and have a problem where the maintenance daemon service continously runs at 50% CPU utilization, slowing my web server dramatically. I only have 15 web site logs being analyzed. The service never use to do this until recently. I have left the service running for weeks at a clip and it never ever drops below 50% CPU utilization. Does anyone have any idea how to correct this problem. Since support is virtually no exsistant for this product anymore, I may have to purchase another product that has support. Any help anyone could give would be much appreciated.
Dan
This really isn't the support forum for LiveStats - someone just posted here once and now the searches show this forum. But these are actually SQL Server forums.
Try the contact infomation links on DeepMetrix web site: http://www.deepmetrix.com/about_us/our_contact_info/
The Microsoft web analytics tool was rewritten since purchasing DeepMetrix and in beta as Project Gatineau and was going to release this year as Microsoft Analytics. But I'm pretty sure the SQL Server group won't end up being the group supporting this.
-Sue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)