List availables tables: running

Showing posts with label running. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

load balancing with standard edition

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

load balancing question

Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql. After
making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and readiness we have
decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a standby failover. Due to
the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have decided to stick with Standard
Edition. Here is how we intend to set it up and wanted to see whether this
was feasible and were there any downsides to this architecture.
1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS Server
4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS Server.
Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to go down but
with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
thanks a bunch!I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by itself. How
will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a shared folder to
another server? I don't think that works. Even if it did, without direct
attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see some corruption due to network
latency.
FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS. It still
sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it was concerned,
the load on the downed server was lower than the server that was up.
Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for Standard
edition.
"Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
pickup."
That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates. I'm not
an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost alternative to
clustering.
hth
Eric
RP wrote:
> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql. After
> making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and readiness we
> have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a standby
> failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have decided
> to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to set it up
> and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were there any
> downsides to this architecture.
> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
> Server
> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
> Server.
> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
> pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to go down
> but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> thanks a bunch!|||Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad experience with
NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to implement an NLB solution
and I would like to know what to expect here and whether it is the right
solution. Could it be the rules on NLB Manager were misconfigured and that
is why it still sent traffic to the server that was down? Also was the
server totally down or was it up but just IIS was down?
thanks!
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by itself.
How
> will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a shared folder to
> another server? I don't think that works. Even if it did, without direct
> attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see some corruption due to network
> latency.
> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS. It
still
> sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it was concerned,
> the load on the downed server was lower than the server that was up.
> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for Standard
> edition.
> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
> pickup."
> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates. I'm
not
> an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost alternative to
> clustering.
> hth
> Eric
>
> RP wrote:
> > Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql. After
> > making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and readiness we
> > have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a standby
> > failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have decided
> > to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to set it up
> > and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were there any
> > downsides to this architecture.
> >
> > 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
> > 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> > 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
> > Server
> > 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
> > Server.
> >
> > Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd would
> > pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to go down
> > but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> >
> > Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> >
> > thanks a bunch!
>|||It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I can't
explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not the entire
server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send traffic to this
IP/Port".
But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that can't be load
balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances communicating with the same
MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
RP wrote:
> Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad experience
> with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to implement an NLB
> solution and I would like to know what to expect here and whether it
> is the right solution. Could it be the rules on NLB Manager were
> misconfigured and that is why it still sent traffic to the server
> that was down? Also was the server totally down or was it up but just
> IIS was down?
> thanks!
> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
>> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a
>> shared folder to another server? I don't think that works. Even if
>> it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see
>> some corruption due to network latency.
>> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
>> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it
>> was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
>> server that was up.
>> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
>> Standard edition.
>> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>> would pickup."
>> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
>> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates.
>> I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost
>> alternative to clustering.
>> hth
>> Eric
>>
>> RP wrote:
>> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
>> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
>> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a
>> standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have
>> decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to
>> set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were
>> there any downsides to this architecture.
>> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
>> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
>> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
>> Server
>> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
>> Server.
>> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to
>> go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
>> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
>> thanks a bunch!|||As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server unless the
two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a standby server but you
don't need NLB for that you can simply change the way the clients are
pointing and redirect them to the other server when the first is down. You
should also reconsider using NAS for your SQL Server files as it is
basically unsupported except for one specific condition and the DELL
solution is not it. See here for more info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I can't
> explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not the entire
> server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send traffic to this
> IP/Port".
> But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that can't be
load
> balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances communicating with the
same
> MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
>
> RP wrote:
> > Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad experience
> > with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to implement an NLB
> > solution and I would like to know what to expect here and whether it
> > is the right solution. Could it be the rules on NLB Manager were
> > misconfigured and that is why it still sent traffic to the server
> > that was down? Also was the server totally down or was it up but just
> > IIS was down?
> >
> > thanks!
> >
> > "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> > news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
> >> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a
> >> shared folder to another server? I don't think that works. Even if
> >> it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see
> >> some corruption due to network latency.
> >>
> >> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
> >> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it
> >> was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
> >> server that was up.
> >>
> >> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
> >> Standard edition.
> >>
> >> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> >> would pickup."
> >> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
> >>
> >> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates.
> >> I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost
> >> alternative to clustering.
> >>
> >> hth
> >> Eric
> >>
> >>
> >> RP wrote:
> >> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
> >> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
> >> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a
> >> standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have
> >> decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to
> >> set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were
> >> there any downsides to this architecture.
> >>
> >> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
> >> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> >> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
> >> Server
> >> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
> >> Server.
> >>
> >> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> >> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to
> >> go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> thanks a bunch!
>|||Andrew, thanks for the MSKB. So I guess that option is ruled out. Well I can
have a standby server, but manual switching of configuration files is
something I dont want to do. I would rather have the standby server pickup
automatically and then I can work on the primary server to bring it back up.
What other options do I have here without having to go to SQLEE & Windows
Advanced Server Clustering. Are there any cost-effective database
replication software out there that can keep the the standby server in sync
with the primary?
thanks!
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23xD5AhshEHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server unless
the
> two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a standby server but you
> don't need NLB for that you can simply change the way the clients are
> pointing and redirect them to the other server when the first is down.
You
> should also reconsider using NAS for your SQL Server files as it is
> basically unsupported except for one specific condition and the DELL
> solution is not it. See here for more info:
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I can't
> > explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not the entire
> > server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send traffic to this
> > IP/Port".
> >
> > But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that can't be
> load
> > balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances communicating with the
> same
> > MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
> >
> >
> >
> > RP wrote:
> > > Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad experience
> > > with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to implement an NLB
> > > solution and I would like to know what to expect here and whether it
> > > is the right solution. Could it be the rules on NLB Manager were
> > > misconfigured and that is why it still sent traffic to the server
> > > that was down? Also was the server totally down or was it up but just
> > > IIS was down?
> > >
> > > thanks!
> > >
> > > "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
> > >> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files? Through a
> > >> shared folder to another server? I don't think that works. Even if
> > >> it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I assume you'd see
> > >> some corruption due to network latency.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
> > >> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as it
> > >> was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
> > >> server that was up.
> > >>
> > >> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
> > >> Standard edition.
> > >>
> > >> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> > >> would pickup."
> > >> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer Associates.
> > >> I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe it's a lower cost
> > >> alternative to clustering.
> > >>
> > >> hth
> > >> Eric
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RP wrote:
> > >> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
> > >> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
> > >> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function as a
> > >> standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE we have
> > >> decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we intend to
> > >> set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible and were
> > >> there any downsides to this architecture.
> > >>
> > >> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB Cluster.
> > >> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> > >> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault NAS
> > >> Server
> > >> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on NAS
> > >> Server.
> > >>
> > >> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> > >> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were to
> > >> go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> > >>
> > >> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> thanks a bunch!
> >
> >
>|||Log Shipping. With SQL 2k EE (which you already said you don't want it) you
get log shipping. But I have seen articles and web sites often describing
how to set up a poor man's log shipping.
Search MSDN, Google, and some of the popular SQL Server web sites for log
shipping on SQL Server Standard Edition.
But you still have the issue of clients now need to point to the new server.
Depending on what front-end application you use and how it's set up, it
could be as easy as changing a server-based config/ini/xml file or it could
be as painful as sneakering (walking to each pc and updating a file or odbc
connection.)
hth
Eric
RP wrote:
> Andrew, thanks for the MSKB. So I guess that option is ruled out.
> Well I can have a standby server, but manual switching of
> configuration files is something I dont want to do. I would rather
> have the standby server pickup automatically and then I can work on
> the primary server to bring it back up. What other options do I have
> here without having to go to SQLEE & Windows Advanced Server
> Clustering. Are there any cost-effective database replication
> software out there that can keep the the standby server in sync with
> the primary?
> thanks!
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23xD5AhshEHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server
>> unless the two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a
>> standby server but you don't need NLB for that you can simply change
>> the way the clients are pointing and redirect them to the other
>> server when the first is down. You should also reconsider using NAS
>> for your SQL Server files as it is basically unsupported except for
>> one specific condition and the DELL solution is not it. See here
>> for more info:
>>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
>> message news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I
>> can't explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not
>> the entire server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send
>> traffic to this IP/Port".
>> But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that
>> can't be load balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances
>> communicating with the same MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
>>
>> RP wrote:
>> Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad
>> experience with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to
>> implement an NLB solution and I would like to know what to expect
>> here and whether it is the right solution. Could it be the rules
>> on NLB Manager were misconfigured and that is why it still sent
>> traffic to the server that was down? Also was the server totally
>> down or was it up but just IIS was down?
>> thanks!
>> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
>> message news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
>> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files?
>> Through a shared folder to another server? I don't think that
>> works. Even if it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I
>> assume you'd see some corruption due to network latency.
>> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
>> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as
>> it was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
>> server that was up.
>> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
>> Standard edition.
>> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>> would pickup."
>> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
>> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer
>> Associates. I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe
>> it's a lower cost alternative to clustering.
>> hth
>> Eric
>>
>> RP wrote:
>> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
>> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
>> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function
>> as a standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE
>> we have decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we
>> intend to set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible
>> and were there any downsides to this architecture.
>> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB
>> Cluster.
>> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
>> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault
>> NAS Server
>> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on
>> NAS Server.
>> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
>> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were
>> to go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
>> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
>> thanks a bunch!|||Eric, I have tried the "poor mans" log shipping method. It works fine for
smaller databases. It never did work on one of my larger databases which was
1.5GB+. I kept getting timeout errors which I could never figure out why. I
guess some sort of database replication software would do the trick. The key
is frequency of the replication. Does anyone offer near-instant frequencies?
If so, I guess in theory if my primary went down all I would have to do is
switch the config files to the backup server and all the data would be there
ready to go...
thanks!
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
news:%23JVwD1shEHA.1184@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Log Shipping. With SQL 2k EE (which you already said you don't want it)
you
> get log shipping. But I have seen articles and web sites often describing
> how to set up a poor man's log shipping.
> Search MSDN, Google, and some of the popular SQL Server web sites for log
> shipping on SQL Server Standard Edition.
> But you still have the issue of clients now need to point to the new
server.
> Depending on what front-end application you use and how it's set up, it
> could be as easy as changing a server-based config/ini/xml file or it
could
> be as painful as sneakering (walking to each pc and updating a file or
odbc
> connection.)
> hth
> Eric
>
> RP wrote:
> > Andrew, thanks for the MSKB. So I guess that option is ruled out.
> > Well I can have a standby server, but manual switching of
> > configuration files is something I dont want to do. I would rather
> > have the standby server pickup automatically and then I can work on
> > the primary server to bring it back up. What other options do I have
> > here without having to go to SQLEE & Windows Advanced Server
> > Clustering. Are there any cost-effective database replication
> > software out there that can keep the the standby server in sync with
> > the primary?
> >
> > thanks!
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23xD5AhshEHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server
> >> unless the two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a
> >> standby server but you don't need NLB for that you can simply change
> >> the way the clients are pointing and redirect them to the other
> >> server when the first is down. You should also reconsider using NAS
> >> for your SQL Server files as it is basically unsupported except for
> >> one specific condition and the DELL solution is not it. See here
> >> for more info:
> >>
> >>
> >
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
> >> message news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I
> >> can't explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not
> >> the entire server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send
> >> traffic to this IP/Port".
> >>
> >> But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that
> >> can't be load balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances
> >> communicating with the same MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> RP wrote:
> >> Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad
> >> experience with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to
> >> implement an NLB solution and I would like to know what to expect
> >> here and whether it is the right solution. Could it be the rules
> >> on NLB Manager were misconfigured and that is why it still sent
> >> traffic to the server that was down? Also was the server totally
> >> down or was it up but just IIS was down?
> >>
> >> thanks!
> >>
> >> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
> >> message news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
> >> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files?
> >> Through a shared folder to another server? I don't think that
> >> works. Even if it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I
> >> assume you'd see some corruption due to network latency.
> >>
> >> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
> >> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as
> >> it was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
> >> server that was up.
> >>
> >> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
> >> Standard edition.
> >>
> >> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> >> would pickup."
> >> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
> >>
> >> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer
> >> Associates. I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe
> >> it's a lower cost alternative to clustering.
> >>
> >> hth
> >> Eric
> >>
> >>
> >> RP wrote:
> >> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
> >> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
> >> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function
> >> as a standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE
> >> we have decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we
> >> intend to set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible
> >> and were there any downsides to this architecture.
> >>
> >> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB
> >> Cluster.
> >> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> >> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault
> >> NAS Server
> >> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on
> >> NAS Server.
> >>
> >> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> >> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were
> >> to go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> thanks a bunch!
>|||There are plenty of bits of code out there (check google) for home grown log
shipping and there was also code in the SQL2000 resource kit as well. If
you want unattended and virtually instantaneous fail over you need
clustering. Log shipping can get you close if you create a good enough
script or use the Log shipping wizard in Enterprise edition. But you can't
have your cake and eat it too in this case. If you don't want to spend the
money to do it correctly you have to live with what options exist without
these features. 1.5GB is pretty small and should work fine for both
replication and log shipping. I would recommend log shipping over
replication for a warm stand by solution.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RP" <rp@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eQa2ZathEHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Eric, I have tried the "poor mans" log shipping method. It works fine for
> smaller databases. It never did work on one of my larger databases which
was
> 1.5GB+. I kept getting timeout errors which I could never figure out why.
I
> guess some sort of database replication software would do the trick. The
key
> is frequency of the replication. Does anyone offer near-instant
frequencies?
> If so, I guess in theory if my primary went down all I would have to do is
> switch the config files to the backup server and all the data would be
there
> ready to go...
> thanks!
> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in message
> news:%23JVwD1shEHA.1184@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Log Shipping. With SQL 2k EE (which you already said you don't want it)
> you
> > get log shipping. But I have seen articles and web sites often
describing
> > how to set up a poor man's log shipping.
> >
> > Search MSDN, Google, and some of the popular SQL Server web sites for
log
> > shipping on SQL Server Standard Edition.
> >
> > But you still have the issue of clients now need to point to the new
> server.
> > Depending on what front-end application you use and how it's set up, it
> > could be as easy as changing a server-based config/ini/xml file or it
> could
> > be as painful as sneakering (walking to each pc and updating a file or
> odbc
> > connection.)
> >
> > hth
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > RP wrote:
> > > Andrew, thanks for the MSKB. So I guess that option is ruled out.
> > > Well I can have a standby server, but manual switching of
> > > configuration files is something I dont want to do. I would rather
> > > have the standby server pickup automatically and then I can work on
> > > the primary server to bring it back up. What other options do I have
> > > here without having to go to SQLEE & Windows Advanced Server
> > > Clustering. Are there any cost-effective database replication
> > > software out there that can keep the the standby server in sync with
> > > the primary?
> > >
> > > thanks!
> > >
> > > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23xD5AhshEHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > >> As Eric states you can not use NLB to load share with SQL Server
> > >> unless the two DB's are essentially read only. YOu can have a
> > >> standby server but you don't need NLB for that you can simply change
> > >> the way the clients are pointing and redirect them to the other
> > >> server when the first is down. You should also reconsider using NAS
> > >> for your SQL Server files as it is basically unsupported except for
> > >> one specific condition and the DELL solution is not it. See here
> > >> for more info:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261&Product=sql2k
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
> > >> message news:uwRugZshEHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> It wasn't my department; all I know was NLB the problem, sorry I
> > >> can't explain further. But I think it was IIS that was down, not
> > >> the entire server, so the server itself still was saying "yes send
> > >> traffic to this IP/Port".
> > >>
> > >> But still, you're thinking about load balancing somethign that
> > >> can't be load balanced. You can't have 2 sql server instances
> > >> communicating with the same MDF/NDF/LDFs at the same time.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RP wrote:
> > >> Eric, thanks for your response. When you say you had a bad
> > >> experience with NLB could you please elaborate? We are about to
> > >> implement an NLB solution and I would like to know what to expect
> > >> here and whether it is the right solution. Could it be the rules
> > >> on NLB Manager were misconfigured and that is why it still sent
> > >> traffic to the server that was down? Also was the server totally
> > >> down or was it up but just IIS was down?
> > >>
> > >> thanks!
> > >>
> > >> "Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.hyotyt_mail_nounderscores.com> wrote in
> > >> message news:ebnwwjrhEHA.1888@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >> I'm not sure if that would work. The NAS device is a server by
> > >> itself. How will SQL Server connect to the mdf/ldf files?
> > >> Through a shared folder to another server? I don't think that
> > >> works. Even if it did, without direct attach, i.e., fiber/SAN, I
> > >> assume you'd see some corruption due to network latency.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, NLB for Win Server 2003 was horrible for my company WRT IIS.
> > >> It still sent traffic to a server that was down because as far as
> > >> it was concerned, the load on the downed server was lower than the
> > >> server that was up.
> > >>
> > >> Incindentally, I've seen SQL 2k EE on ebay for what we paid for
> > >> Standard edition.
> > >>
> > >> "Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> > >> would pickup."
> > >> That's cluster-failover, not network load balancing.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe look at a product called Britestore from Computer
> > >> Associates. I'm not an expert on what it can do but I believe
> > >> it's a lower cost alternative to clustering.
> > >>
> > >> hth
> > >> Eric
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RP wrote:
> > >> Hi all, in our current environment we have 1 server running sql.
> > >> After making a review of our disaster recovery strategy and
> > >> readiness we have decided to bring in a 2nd server to function
> > >> as a standby failover. Due to the price limitations with SQL2KEE
> > >> we have decided to stick with Standard Edition. Here is how we
> > >> intend to set it up and wanted to see whether this was feasible
> > >> and were there any downsides to this architecture.
> > >>
> > >> 1. 2 Servers running Windows Server 2003 Standard in a NLB
> > >> Cluster.
> > >> 2. Both Servers will have SQL2K Standard Installed
> > >> 3. Database files (mdf & ldf) will reside on a Dell PowerVault
> > >> NAS Server
> > >> 4. Databases on each server configured to point to same file on
> > >> NAS Server.
> > >>
> > >> Assuming this is possible, if 1 server were to go down, the 2nd
> > >> would pickup. Now we would be in a ditch if the NAS Server were
> > >> to go down but with the Raid 5 measures in place we should be OK.
> > >>
> > >> Any suggestions/recommendations are greatly appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> thanks a bunch!
> >
> >
>

Load balancing in SQL Server

We are doing a feasilibility study of using SQL Server cluster for load balancing.
Our clients will be running on Linux/Apache, connecting to SQL Server using JDBC.
Some c++ client tools will connect using ODBC.
Based on my limited knowledge of SQLServer clustering technology, it seems that
it does not have load balancing cluster with more than one node. In other
words, it will not allow connections to the same database from more than one
node. Only one node can own up the database, which to means that it will do
all the work pertaining to that database.
I also understand that if our goal is to balance the load amongst various nodes,
then Federated server is a better option. Can anyone explain this. Did I understand
it correctly.
I tried to find information about this in books online, but couldn't find it.
Were else can I get the information.
TIA.
SQL Server clustering is not for load balancing. It's for high
availability. Using federated servers is for load balancing. Check out
distributed partitioned views in the BOL.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"rkusenet" <rkusenet@.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c49pju$2g12jc$1@.ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de...
We are doing a feasilibility study of using SQL Server cluster for load
balancing.
Our clients will be running on Linux/Apache, connecting to SQL Server using
JDBC.
Some c++ client tools will connect using ODBC.
Based on my limited knowledge of SQLServer clustering technology, it seems
that
it does not have load balancing cluster with more than one node. In other
words, it will not allow connections to the same database from more than one
node. Only one node can own up the database, which to means that it will do
all the work pertaining to that database.
I also understand that if our goal is to balance the load amongst various
nodes,
then Federated server is a better option. Can anyone explain this. Did I
understand
it correctly.
I tried to find information about this in books online, but couldn't find
it.
Were else can I get the information.
TIA.

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>
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 

</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 SchlÃ¼ter 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

How much traffic/load can a database server running MS SQL server take
before it can't handle it anymore? And when that time comes, what are the
recourses? Am I able to load balance it between separate servers?Jibba Jabba wrote:
> How much traffic/load can a database server running MS SQL server take
> before it can't handle it anymore? And when that time comes, what are the
> recourses? Am I able to load balance it between separate servers?

Depends on the server hardware. And based on Microsoft's federated
architecture ... while you can offload to multiple servers ... you must
do a lot of duplication and mean time between failures goes down ...
not up.

If you get to the point that SQL Server can no longer handle the load
... you are most likely looking at Sybase, Informix, Oracle, DB2 or
waiting hopefully for some future version.

--
Daniel Morgan
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||"Jibba Jabba" <dontemailme@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message news:<UsEWb.893$tL3.845@.newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >...
> How much traffic/load can a database server running MS SQL server take
> before it can't handle it anymore? And when that time comes, what are the
> recourses? Am I able to load balance it between separate servers?

As with most performance-related questions, there's no simple answer.
If you have a well-designed application, and well-written code, then
the answer is 'a lot'. If you don't, then the answer is 'not a lot'.
The only way to get a real, quantifiable answer is for you to do some
load testing using your own code and data. In many cases, scaling up
the database server is pointless, because the application code is the
real bottleneck, but again, this is something that only you can
investigate properly.

Simon|||"Jibba Jabba" <dontemailme@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:UsEWb.893$tL3.845@.newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> How much traffic/load can a database server running MS SQL server take
> before it can't handle it anymore? And when that time comes, what are the
> recourses? Am I able to load balance it between separate servers?

"It depends"

What type of load. How fast are your disks, your CPU, etc.

You can't do load-balancing per-se, but you can do various things that can
help.

We publish data to Box A and then push that to Boxes B and C and uses those
for reading. Works well.

Load balace issue

Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all the
time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now complaining
of slow performance of the application even the server is a dual xeon 2.8
processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run SQL 2000
Enterprise.
some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
and they all will act as one server.
This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
servers.
can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
how to do it.
I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
problem of high CPU usage.
I greatly appreciate any feed back
Thanks in advance.
Hi
Unless you have an intricate application design that supports load balancing
(with replication behind the scenes etc), you can't do it.
SQL Server does not support load balancing.
You should not run SQL Server in high priority as you may starve the OS of
CPU cycles, resulting in an actual system slowdown.
Have you looked at what is causing your CPU's to run so high? Bad indexing
jumps to my mind. Are you sure that SQL Server is using the 4.7GB of the 6Gb
it could? Run profiler and see which queries are the problematic ones and
tune those. Check with Performance monitor what the SQL Server Target Memory
setting is.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"aherzallah" <ah@.herz.dk> wrote in message
news:uITvd1OAGHA.3296@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all
> the time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now
> complaining of slow performance of the application even the server is a
> dual xeon 2.8 processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run
> SQL 2000 Enterprise.
> some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
> and they all will act as one server.
> This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
> servers.
> can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
> how to do it.
> I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
> problem of high CPU usage.
> I greatly appreciate any feed back
> Thanks in advance.
>
|||Have you run a profile to see what queries are actually running? Ok, it
could well be that you are running at capcity, but don't overlook the fact
that your application could have design flaws, or in need of some
maintenance. How about your database design, indexes etc...Just broad
suggestions, certainly worth checking out before you spend your bosses money
on a server farm!

HTH.
"aherzallah" <ah@.herz.dk> wrote in message
news:uITvd1OAGHA.3296@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all
> the time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now
> complaining of slow performance of the application even the server is a
> dual xeon 2.8 processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run
> SQL 2000 Enterprise.
> some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
> and they all will act as one server.
> This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
> servers.
> can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
> how to do it.
> I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
> problem of high CPU usage.
> I greatly appreciate any feed back
> Thanks in advance.
>

Monday, March 26, 2012

Load balace issue

Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all the
time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now complain
ing
of slow performance of the application even the server is a dual xeon 2.8
processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run SQL 2000
Enterprise.
some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
and they all will act as one server.
This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
servers.
can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
how to do it.
I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
problem of high CPU usage.
I greatly appreciate any feed back
Thanks in advance.Hi
Unless you have an intricate application design that supports load balancing
(with replication behind the scenes etc), you can't do it.
SQL Server does not support load balancing.
You should not run SQL Server in high priority as you may starve the OS of
CPU cycles, resulting in an actual system slowdown.
Have you looked at what is causing your CPU's to run so high? Bad indexing
jumps to my mind. Are you sure that SQL Server is using the 4.7GB of the 6Gb
it could? Run profiler and see which queries are the problematic ones and
tune those. Check with Performance monitor what the SQL Server Target Memory
setting is.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"aherzallah" <ah@.herz.dk> wrote in message
news:uITvd1OAGHA.3296@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all
> the time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now
> complaining of slow performance of the application even the server is a
> dual xeon 2.8 processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run
> SQL 2000 Enterprise.
> some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
> and they all will act as one server.
> This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
> servers.
> can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
> how to do it.
> I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
> problem of high CPU usage.
> I greatly appreciate any feed back
> Thanks in advance.
>|||Have you run a profile to see what queries are actually running? Ok, it
could well be that you are running at capcity, but don't overlook the fact
that your application could have design flaws, or in need of some
maintenance. How about your database design, indexes etc...Just broad
suggestions, certainly worth checking out before you spend your bosses money
on a server farm!

Load balace issue

Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all the
time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now complaining
of slow performance of the application even the server is a dual xeon 2.8
processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run SQL 2000
Enterprise.
some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
and they all will act as one server.
This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
servers.
can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
how to do it.
I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
problem of high CPU usage.
I greatly appreciate any feed back
Thanks in advance.Hi
Unless you have an intricate application design that supports load balancing
(with replication behind the scenes etc), you can't do it.
SQL Server does not support load balancing.
You should not run SQL Server in high priority as you may starve the OS of
CPU cycles, resulting in an actual system slowdown.
Have you looked at what is causing your CPU's to run so high? Bad indexing
jumps to my mind. Are you sure that SQL Server is using the 4.7GB of the 6Gb
it could? Run profiler and see which queries are the problematic ones and
tune those. Check with Performance monitor what the SQL Server Target Memory
setting is.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"aherzallah" <ah@.herz.dk> wrote in message
news:uITvd1OAGHA.3296@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all
> the time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now
> complaining of slow performance of the application even the server is a
> dual xeon 2.8 processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run
> SQL 2000 Enterprise.
> some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
> and they all will act as one server.
> This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
> servers.
> can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
> how to do it.
> I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
> problem of high CPU usage.
> I greatly appreciate any feed back
> Thanks in advance.
>|||Have you run a profile to see what queries are actually running? Ok, it
could well be that you are running at capcity, but don't overlook the fact
that your application could have design flaws, or in need of some
maintenance. How about your database design, indexes etc...Just broad
suggestions, certainly worth checking out before you spend your bosses money
on a server farm! :)
HTH.
"aherzallah" <ah@.herz.dk> wrote in message
news:uITvd1OAGHA.3296@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone, I am running into an issue that the SQL server CPUs are all
> the time busy serving request [between 80-100%] , and users are now
> complaining of slow performance of the application even the server is a
> dual xeon 2.8 processors and 6GB of ram and set as high priority, I run
> SQL 2000 Enterprise.
> some have suggested to use a load balancing, where I can add more servers
> and they all will act as one server.
> This sounds very interesting if the load can be distributed among several
> servers.
> can anyone give me a suggestion or guides me to where I get more info and
> how to do it.
> I got some info on the failover which look close but does not solve the
> problem of high CPU usage.
> I greatly appreciate any feed back
> Thanks in advance.
>

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

Livestats.XSP having trouble importing log files.

My company is running Livestats.XSP v8. We have been trying to import log files for a website for a few days now but Livestats keeps getting stuck randomly throughout the import process. What i mean by this is that i will import all of the log files by date which have been imported, then its stop and displays "Not Imported....."

We really need to get this remedied as soon as possible and it seems that support for Livestats is slim. Does anyone any idea that could help me? Thanks in advance.

Guess this is a application related problem which either should be answered through the support of the vendor or the support forums for the application.

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

-
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
-

LiveStats.XSP

We were running LiveStats.XSP 7.50 on our server and due to a server failure had to re-install.
However, after entering the license key and completing the install, the software still reports as being unlicensed.
What is the procedure to rectify this?

Thanks

That would be entirely up to LiveStats and how they handle their licensing.

I suspect that they tuck some license key into the database (or maybe Master/msdb?), but you really need to contact them.

|||the server name and port in DEEPMETRIX\analyzer\settings.xml needs to be working for livestats! you need to configure iis to accept connections on that host header and port or change the settings in the file.

<Licensing>
<Server>localhost:80</Server>
</Licensing>

there will be no connection from the internet, but there is a licensing app that opens a connection to the licensing server of deepmetrix and to the local instance of livestats. this service uses the above setting to post the license to the local instance.

the madcow|||Actually, it would be up to Microsoft to support the products they have purchased and pledged to support.sql

Friday, March 30, 2012

load balancing with standard edition

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

load balancing question

load balancing question

load balancing question

Load balancing in SQL Server

load balancing & sql ?

load balancing & sql ?

Load Balancing

Load balace issue

Monday, March 26, 2012

Load balace issue

Load balace issue

LiveStats.XSP Maintenance Daemon Problem

Livestats.XSP having trouble importing log files.

LiveStats.XSP

List availables tables

Blog Archive

About Me