Active/Active/Passive cluster Newb question...

#1

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2 for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance, should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#2

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#3

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#4

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#5

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#6

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#7

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#8

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#9

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!

#10

Clustering is a Hardware Fail over solution only, period. There are no load
balancing aspects at all to a Windows cluster. I don't think that you will
find that Active / Active is not recommended is a general guideline. It
depends on what you need to do and what you have to work with. Most
companies would rather have both nodes actually doing work instead of one
sitting idle. But you have to properly plan for the scenarios that may take
place during failover. If performance is what you are after clustering is
not the answer. Better hardware that is properly configured along with a
well tuned database and application will give you the performance. As for
reliability that is called High Availability and there are many solutions
depending on the requirements.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"Christos" <Christos (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

Hello,
After having quite some research, I found out that Active/Active servers
are
not recommended by most of people as clustering is mainly is a failover
technology. However, there was an opinion of using Clustering for load
balance in a single instance SQL 2005 database. Based on this, I had the
though that I should go for an Active/Active/Passive model of 3 nodes, 2
for
load balancing, (faster querys) and one for failover. My research has
shown
that the failover works if the most half the servers fail, and I think
this
can cover the issue. I am quite worried though about load balancing. I
believe that clustering would not help, and another kind of technology, or
even better servers would do the trick.

Another thing that makes me think hardly about the load balancing, is the
transaction log. I believe that a transaction log for an SQL instance,
should
be tampered only by one server. Would an Active/Active server be
different?

Searching into the internet, I found out that there are lots of
information
and quite vague about this subject, and I would really need some help on
this, to see if I should go on implementing such a solution.

Being new in that stuff, I would appreciate a solution that would give
optimum speed (through clustering or not) and some kind of reliability.

Thanks a lot!