Hi,
In MS Clustering the failover happens only at hardware level or it can also
happen at application level? I mean If I am running two nodes, node1 & node
2. both these servers hardware has no issues but SQL server on node1 has some
problem, will it be able to use SQL server on node2?
Thanks
Reddi
Sure. If a resource stops responding either due to hardware or software
failure, it will fail over. You can test this by using the Move Group
command from the Cluster Administrator tool.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Reddi" <Reddi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F05B1776-F173-4795-A0ED-6751749AB867@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> In MS Clustering the failover happens only at hardware level or it can
> also
> happen at application level? I mean If I am running two nodes, node1 &
> node
> 2. both these servers hardware has no issues but SQL server on node1 has
> some
> problem, will it be able to use SQL server on node2?
> Thanks
> Reddi
>
|||Thanks for your time Rod!
Reddi
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> Sure. If a resource stops responding either due to hardware or software
> failure, it will fail over. You can test this by using the Move Group
> command from the Cluster Administrator tool.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Reddi" <Reddi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F05B1776-F173-4795-A0ED-6751749AB867@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Showing posts with label clustering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clustering. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
question about drives configuration
Hi,
We will build new clustering SQL Server. The question is that what kind
drives configuration for user-defined database data files and transaction log
files will improve performance, RAID 1+0, RAID 0+1, RAID 5 or RAID 10 etc.
Regards!
-Chen
The normal drive performance rules do not change on a cluster. RAID 1
(mirror) or 1+0 (stripe of mirror sets) gives the best performance, but has
the highest per-byte storage cost. RAID 5 (stripe with parity) is very low
cost but does have a performance hit for transactional data and SQL log
usage. RAID 0 + 1 (mirror of stripe sets) is not recommended. RAID 10 is a
generic term for sometimes Raid 1+0 and Sometimes RAID 0+1. Make sure which
one you are getting.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Chen" <Chen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2963003-41D2-4132-B74C-FBF92EE46984@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We will build new clustering SQL Server. The question is that what kind
> drives configuration for user-defined database data files and transaction
> log
> files will improve performance, RAID 1+0, RAID 0+1, RAID 5 or RAID 10 etc.
> Regards!
> -Chen
>
|||Because many vendors confuse the terms RAID 10, RAID 1+0, and RAID 0+1, use the terms mirrored striping and striped mirroring.
Striped mirroring is the best solution for a database server requiring high performance and high availability. Capacity can be a problem, however, because of the number of disks required and their cost.
More Info:
========
Striped Mirroring
===============
Striped mirroring writes logical blocks of data across two or more mirrored sets of disks, creating a single volume with no redundant information between the mirrored sets of disks. Each mirrored set of disks consists
of two or more disks. Striped mirroring provides the same high level of availability as mirroring. The available capacity of a striped mirror is equal to that of each disk in the mirror set (in a two-disk mirror set, 50
percent of the disk capacity is used for data protection). Unlike mirroring, however, striped mirroring provides symmetrical performance. Read performance is very fast because data is available from each disk in
the mirror. In striped mirror implementation, RAID array and SAN controllers support simultaneous reads from each member of the mirror, which maximizes read performance. Write performance is also fast because
writes occur simultaneously across each mirrored set.
With striped mirroring, if a drive fails, read and write performance is slightly reduced, but only for data stored on the mirror set containing the failed disks. Read and write performance to and from the other mirrored
sets is not affected. Striped mirroring can survive the failure of multiple drives, provided at least one drive in each mirrored set survives.
Mirrored Striping
===============
Mirrored striping writes logical blocks of data across two or more disks, creating a single logical volume with no redundant information between the disks, and then mirrors the volume. Read and write performance is
very fast, but mirrored striping is not as fault tolerant as striped mirroring. When a single disk in a stripe fails, the data remains available in the other stripe, but the stripe is broken. With one broken stripe, the failure of a
disk in the remaining stripe causes the data to become unavailable. In addition, when a stripe fails, read performance is slower because only one stripe is functional.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
Is this not true?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The normal drive performance rules do not change on a cluster. RAID 1
> (mirror) or 1+0 (stripe of mirror sets) gives the best performance, but
has
> the highest per-byte storage cost. RAID 5 (stripe with parity) is very
low
> cost but does have a performance hit for transactional data and SQL log
> usage. RAID 0 + 1 (mirror of stripe sets) is not recommended. RAID 10 is
a
> generic term for sometimes Raid 1+0 and Sometimes RAID 0+1. Make sure
which[vbcol=seagreen]
> one you are getting.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Chen" <Chen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2963003-41D2-4132-B74C-FBF92EE46984@.microsoft.com...
transaction[vbcol=seagreen]
etc.
>
|||If the amount of cache is sufficient to buffer all the I/O to the drives
then it may not be to much of an issue. But with direct attached storage or
low end SAN controllers you usually only get up to 512K of controller cache.
That can easily be saturated with a decent size checkpoint and then you are
at the mercy of the drives themselves. If you are looking for performance
you should not be thinking RAID 5.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23R0VkFghFHA.4028@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
> difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
> Is this not true?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> has
> low
> a
> which
> transaction
> etc.
>
|||RAID5 requires many more IO operations for a transactional change than any
of the other RAID configurations. This can impact cache performance since
it requires more cache space to handle the extra block read-writes. The
only place I find RAID5 to be good is where there is a daily load process
and everything else is read-only. transactional system, SAN or not, needs a
RAID 1+0 layoud for best performance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23R0VkFghFHA.4028@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
> difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
> Is this not true?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> has
> low
> a
> which
> transaction
> etc.
>
We will build new clustering SQL Server. The question is that what kind
drives configuration for user-defined database data files and transaction log
files will improve performance, RAID 1+0, RAID 0+1, RAID 5 or RAID 10 etc.
Regards!
-Chen
The normal drive performance rules do not change on a cluster. RAID 1
(mirror) or 1+0 (stripe of mirror sets) gives the best performance, but has
the highest per-byte storage cost. RAID 5 (stripe with parity) is very low
cost but does have a performance hit for transactional data and SQL log
usage. RAID 0 + 1 (mirror of stripe sets) is not recommended. RAID 10 is a
generic term for sometimes Raid 1+0 and Sometimes RAID 0+1. Make sure which
one you are getting.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Chen" <Chen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2963003-41D2-4132-B74C-FBF92EE46984@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We will build new clustering SQL Server. The question is that what kind
> drives configuration for user-defined database data files and transaction
> log
> files will improve performance, RAID 1+0, RAID 0+1, RAID 5 or RAID 10 etc.
> Regards!
> -Chen
>
|||Because many vendors confuse the terms RAID 10, RAID 1+0, and RAID 0+1, use the terms mirrored striping and striped mirroring.
Striped mirroring is the best solution for a database server requiring high performance and high availability. Capacity can be a problem, however, because of the number of disks required and their cost.
More Info:
========
Striped Mirroring
===============
Striped mirroring writes logical blocks of data across two or more mirrored sets of disks, creating a single volume with no redundant information between the mirrored sets of disks. Each mirrored set of disks consists
of two or more disks. Striped mirroring provides the same high level of availability as mirroring. The available capacity of a striped mirror is equal to that of each disk in the mirror set (in a two-disk mirror set, 50
percent of the disk capacity is used for data protection). Unlike mirroring, however, striped mirroring provides symmetrical performance. Read performance is very fast because data is available from each disk in
the mirror. In striped mirror implementation, RAID array and SAN controllers support simultaneous reads from each member of the mirror, which maximizes read performance. Write performance is also fast because
writes occur simultaneously across each mirrored set.
With striped mirroring, if a drive fails, read and write performance is slightly reduced, but only for data stored on the mirror set containing the failed disks. Read and write performance to and from the other mirrored
sets is not affected. Striped mirroring can survive the failure of multiple drives, provided at least one drive in each mirrored set survives.
Mirrored Striping
===============
Mirrored striping writes logical blocks of data across two or more disks, creating a single logical volume with no redundant information between the disks, and then mirrors the volume. Read and write performance is
very fast, but mirrored striping is not as fault tolerant as striped mirroring. When a single disk in a stripe fails, the data remains available in the other stripe, but the stripe is broken. With one broken stripe, the failure of a
disk in the remaining stripe causes the data to become unavailable. In addition, when a stripe fails, read performance is slower because only one stripe is functional.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
Is this not true?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The normal drive performance rules do not change on a cluster. RAID 1
> (mirror) or 1+0 (stripe of mirror sets) gives the best performance, but
has
> the highest per-byte storage cost. RAID 5 (stripe with parity) is very
low
> cost but does have a performance hit for transactional data and SQL log
> usage. RAID 0 + 1 (mirror of stripe sets) is not recommended. RAID 10 is
a
> generic term for sometimes Raid 1+0 and Sometimes RAID 0+1. Make sure
which[vbcol=seagreen]
> one you are getting.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Chen" <Chen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2963003-41D2-4132-B74C-FBF92EE46984@.microsoft.com...
transaction[vbcol=seagreen]
etc.
>
|||If the amount of cache is sufficient to buffer all the I/O to the drives
then it may not be to much of an issue. But with direct attached storage or
low end SAN controllers you usually only get up to 512K of controller cache.
That can easily be saturated with a decent size checkpoint and then you are
at the mercy of the drives themselves. If you are looking for performance
you should not be thinking RAID 5.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23R0VkFghFHA.4028@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
> difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
> Is this not true?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> has
> low
> a
> which
> transaction
> etc.
>
|||RAID5 requires many more IO operations for a transactional change than any
of the other RAID configurations. This can impact cache performance since
it requires more cache space to handle the extra block read-writes. The
only place I find RAID5 to be good is where there is a daily load process
and everything else is read-only. transactional system, SAN or not, needs a
RAID 1+0 layoud for best performance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23R0VkFghFHA.4028@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I was under the impression that with write-back caching the performance
> difference between raid 5 and the raid 01, 10,1 variants is much the same.
> Is this not true?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uqzYB7ygFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> has
> low
> a
> which
> transaction
> etc.
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
question about clustering algorithm used by microsoft
hello everyone,
i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
any document that compares this algorithm then it would
be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
thanks in advance,
praveen
..
This newsgroups covers failover clustering and not datamining clustering
algorithms, so I am afraid you will not find an answer here either, there is
however a specific datamining newsgroup,
microsoft.public.sqlserver.datamining which should be able to be of help.
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33c501c4af25$febdf850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> hello everyone,
> i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
> i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
> algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
> Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
> to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
> rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
> just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
> any document that compares this algorithm then it would
> be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
> desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
> knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
> email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
> thanks in advance,
> praveen
> .
>
|||Well, um, how shall I put this politely...... you're in the wrong
newsgroup.
This newsgroup deals with having multiple servers appear as one, or work
cooperatively in a "cluster".
However you might want to check out some of these links.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...in/dmperf.mspx
http://research.microsoft.com/resear...aspx?pubid=268
http://research.microsoft.com/resear...aspx?pubid=267
http://research.microsoft.com/~thies...ning-curve.pdf
http://research.microsoft.com/users/...16477-wang.pdf
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33c501c4af25$febdf850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> hello everyone,
> i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
> i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
> algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
> Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
> to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
> rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
> just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
> any document that compares this algorithm then it would
> be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
> desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
> knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
> email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
> thanks in advance,
> praveen
> .
>
i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
any document that compares this algorithm then it would
be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
thanks in advance,
praveen
..
This newsgroups covers failover clustering and not datamining clustering
algorithms, so I am afraid you will not find an answer here either, there is
however a specific datamining newsgroup,
microsoft.public.sqlserver.datamining which should be able to be of help.
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33c501c4af25$febdf850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> hello everyone,
> i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
> i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
> algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
> Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
> to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
> rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
> just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
> any document that compares this algorithm then it would
> be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
> desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
> knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
> email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
> thanks in advance,
> praveen
> .
>
|||Well, um, how shall I put this politely...... you're in the wrong
newsgroup.
This newsgroup deals with having multiple servers appear as one, or work
cooperatively in a "cluster".
However you might want to check out some of these links.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...in/dmperf.mspx
http://research.microsoft.com/resear...aspx?pubid=268
http://research.microsoft.com/resear...aspx?pubid=267
http://research.microsoft.com/~thies...ning-curve.pdf
http://research.microsoft.com/users/...16477-wang.pdf
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33c501c4af25$febdf850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> hello everyone,
> i tried this question in olap room but there was no reply.
> i had a question regarding Expectation-Maximization
> algorithm used by microsoft for data mining in ole db.
> Does anyone know how good this algorithm is when compared
> to the latest clustering algorithms like chameleon, cure,
> rock. Does EM create clusters of hybrid shapes or else
> just it forms only circular shaped clusters. If there is
> any document that compares this algorithm then it would
> be helpful for me a lot. i need this information
> desperately. Can anyone of u please reply me about ur
> knowledge about this.hope someone will reply me soon.my
> email id is mailkonda@.yahoo.com
> thanks in advance,
> praveen
> .
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)