figuerres wrote:
if you need to have say 3 or more servers all be "Active - Active" and share the same data store you are looking at some kind of extenral disk system possibly a SAN and that costs $$$ to build and maintain.
then you have to have the servers all share access to that data store and not corrupt the data.
I think this can be done, is done for a few systems but in most cases it's overkill.
Hey, shared disk, good idea. I'm gonna have to dig up some info on that. That sounds like not a bad idea. I know of several other applications that cluster in this manner.
figuerres wrote:
for example If I had to handle a high TP rate I might look at a way to deploy several servrs to handle that transaction load and then dump the data into the main server.
The concept of splitting the ordering or the high volume processing tables away into another instance is not a bad way either. I noticed a somewhat similar approach in an application a couple years ago. That takes some planning. But I guess all of this would.
figuerres wrote:
something like that might get all the perf you need but with much less expensive hardware and software setup.
I think this is an excellent point and a good reminder to be cost aware.
figuerres wrote:also -- MORE RAM !
SQL loves ram, eats it for breakast, lunch and dinner!
if you can have as much ram as the size of the database then go for it!
Uh...ya. This is the one I'm not doing right now. Need to get on that.
