Increased performance using 2 servers and a SAN

Hi
I need to increase performance of our SQL enviroment and i dont really want
to put one BIG server in.
What would be the best way of load balancing 1 SQL database over 2 servers?
My first thought was 2 servers clustered with a SAN and use SQL replication
between two differant Instances, is this possible or is there a better way?
Thanks
Andy
SQL 2000 can't not be load balanced for a single database. A database can
only be run from one server at a time. Sorry.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Andrew Gilbert" <AndrewGilbert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CCD89F6-9AAA-4F49-A77B-095B809384AC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I need to increase performance of our SQL enviroment and i dont really
> want
> to put one BIG server in.
> What would be the best way of load balancing 1 SQL database over 2
> servers?
> My first thought was 2 servers clustered with a SAN and use SQL
> replication
> between two differant Instances, is this possible or is there a better
> way?
> Thanks
> Andy
|||Hi
Using replication is possible, but your application has to understand that
records can be inserted in different databases, so if any identity columns
exist, expect issues.
SQL Server can not be directly load balanced. Don't forget, a SAN may not
make IO quicker, it might actually be a lot slower (compared to local
storage).
What is your current hardware setup, DB sizes, transactions per minute and
what performance are you expecting?
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/
"Andrew Gilbert" <AndrewGilbert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CCD89F6-9AAA-4F49-A77B-095B809384AC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I need to increase performance of our SQL enviroment and i dont really
want
> to put one BIG server in.
> What would be the best way of load balancing 1 SQL database over 2
servers?
> My first thought was 2 servers clustered with a SAN and use SQL
replication
> between two differant Instances, is this possible or is there a better
way?
> Thanks
> Andy
|||Hi
We currently have a HP DL380 with 2x Zeaon 2.8Ghz processors and 2GB RAM
we have 2 DB and all Logs on one set of RAID 5 10k DIsks and the Main DB on
its own Mirrored set of 10K Disks.
We are experiancing High Disk Queue lengths on the first set of Disk, so we
was looking to use a HP MSA500 SAN and split all DB and Logs onto seperate
Mirrored Disks?
The Main DB is 500mb and the other DB which is used for referance info is
1.3GB
We have about 180 users using the system and we seem to be getting slow
query times in peak load, i.e 400 - 1000ms query times.
If you have any suggestion then please let me know, would a MSA500 be a bad
idea?
Andy
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Using replication is possible, but your application has to understand that
> records can be inserted in different databases, so if any identity columns
> exist, expect issues.
> SQL Server can not be directly load balanced. Don't forget, a SAN may not
> make IO quicker, it might actually be a lot slower (compared to local
> storage).
> What is your current hardware setup, DB sizes, transactions per minute and
> what performance are you expecting?
> 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/
> "Andrew Gilbert" <AndrewGilbert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CCD89F6-9AAA-4F49-A77B-095B809384AC@.microsoft.com...
> want
> servers?
> replication
> way?
>
>
|||While I am unfamiliar with the specific hardware you are considering, the
general idea of separate physical devices for Data and Log is a fundamental
key for increasing performance. Avoid RAID-5 even in a SAN for transaction
log devices. Larger write cache in a SAN device will lead to increased SQL
performance. Check and see if the high queue lengths are for read or for
write operations. If they are for read requests, increasing the RAM (and
moving to Enterprise SQL) may result in more performance improvements than
you would get through disk subsystem changes. Of course, the ideas are not
mutually exclusive.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Andrew Gilbert" <AndrewGilbert@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B0503A3-DB49-4E1B-8D12-E2542575690B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We currently have a HP DL380 with 2x Zeaon 2.8Ghz processors and 2GB RAM
> we have 2 DB and all Logs on one set of RAID 5 10k DIsks and the Main DB
on
> its own Mirrored set of 10K Disks.
> We are experiancing High Disk Queue lengths on the first set of Disk, so
we
> was looking to use a HP MSA500 SAN and split all DB and Logs onto seperate
> Mirrored Disks?
> The Main DB is 500mb and the other DB which is used for referance info is
> 1.3GB
> We have about 180 users using the system and we seem to be getting slow
> query times in peak load, i.e 400 - 1000ms query times.
> If you have any suggestion then please let me know, would a MSA500 be a
bad[vbcol=seagreen]
> idea?
> Andy
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
that[vbcol=seagreen]
columns[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
sql