SQL Server - Will SQL Server 2008 support "real" load balancing clustering?

Asked By cp.haye

25-Sep-07 05:48 PM

Will SQL Server 2008 support "real" load balancing clustering?

Or will it still be a failover cluster.

Thanks,

Chris

25-Sep-07 07:48 PM

SQL Server has no intention of supporting a "real Load Balanced Cluster"
since that does not exist in the Windows world. Clustering is a Windows
technology that SQL Server takes advantage of, not the other way around.
The only support for scale out is:

1.  Read-Only scalable shared databases
2.  Distributed Partitioned views
3.  To some extent Replication.

These are all available in SQL2005 although there are some enhancements in
2008.

--
Andrew J. Kelly    SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

25-Sep-07 09:54 PM

If I may play the devil's advocate, I guess if the market demands it, SQL
Server can always build a 'real load balanced cluster' for itself even if
Windows doesn't support one.

Linchi

26-Sep-07 09:03 AM

Sure Linchi and they can build me a new house while they are at it:).
While this is not out of the realm of possibility it isn't here now and
won't be for at least 1 more major release so if I were the poster I
wouldn't wait for the technology.

--
Andrew J. Kelly    SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

26-Sep-07 06:43 PM

Andrew's right I personally don't want to keep waiting for this technology to
become available, I'm tired of it not being there.

With SQL Server 2008, Microsoft has had 5 chances with SQL Server to
implement clustering for true load balancing and high availability (granted
SQL Server clustering is dependent on Windows Server Clustering which isn't
real clustering anyway). The market does demand it, I talk to developers all
the time who think it's way overdue.

At this point my recommendation to my bosses would be to find a different
database engine that does support true clustering and load balancing for max
performance and high availability - they'll probably want SQL Server
regardless of what I say because of cost.

I know SQL Server is easy to develop in, but I always keep an eye on what's
going to happen with applications when they are in production. And
reliability and performance are at the top of my list.

Chris

27-Sep-07 05:00 AM

Chris,

Why do you say that Windows clustering is not "true" clustering? That
is a different thing from saying that SQL Server does not support
*load balancing* clustering specifically - you are right about that of
course.

Microsoft has taken the view that scale-out is an application or web
tier function rather than a database function - ie. "shared nothing"
rather than "shared disk". Shared nothing architectures work for some
of the largest databases in the world - not least those used by Google
and Microsoft themselves.

--
David Portas

27-Sep-07 10:20 AM

I believe there are now 3rd party load balancing products for SQL Server.  I
seem to recall 2 vendors of such products at the recent PASS conference.  i
don't recall the details since I don't have or anticipate any clients that
need such.  A review of the exhibitors at the Denver 2007 PASS conference
online should reveal the necessary information.

27-Sep-07 10:25 AM

Chris,

I am not saying that the technology you are referring to is not useful or
even wanted by many. But in all the years I have been consulting on high end
SQL Server systems I have found that many who wanted this (or thought they
did) did not have a real need for it. In many cases the scale up route was
far easier, cheaper and cleaner. Scaling out with databases has its down
sides just like any technology. There is no free ride or magic option. You
always have trade offs.

--
Andrew J. Kelly    SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

06-Nov-07 05:16 AM

It's sad to know the SQL Server 2008 will be released without a "real Load
Balanced Cluster".
I think a true load Load Balanced server is of much use for Reporting
applications.

23-Jun-09 10:35 AM

You are required to be a member to post replies.  After logging in or becoming a member, you will be redirected back to this page.

23-Jun-09 11:01 AM

You are required to be a member to post replies.  After logging in or becoming a member, you will be redirected back to this page.

31-Mar-10 10:12 AM

I don't understand why MS wouldn't consider this technology as an 'alternative' of the HPC variety.



The inherent waste of SQL's architecture if you cluster it is terrible, I don't want 2 or 3 nodes to run 2-3 instances utilizing 30-60% of my hardware, I want 1 instance utilizing 3 nodes worth of hardware that I can run at 90-95% if I need to, with the proper DR solution, that makes sense in TCO for the hardware (which isn't cheap) and ROI, since most of these servers get replaced every 4-6 years anywho.



If you break out SSIS, SSRS into their own environments (based on usage, this makes sense for some) place them in a geo cluster and have the ability to group cluster nodes by location AND pool node resources, that's a win.



Here's another thought on this type of clustering -



Think about all those PC's you have spinning idle every night at the office, be nice to put them to work crunching non-critical data that can be moved off the servers to allow them to do the real heavy lifting (or even as month/year end overflow processing capacity).



multiple that by 200 branches and I've got enough horsepower to get my batch off the mainframe *gasp* and shave the time on it down substantially.



That's where I want to be.