Solved

Review MS SQL cluster diagram

Posted on 2016-08-18
9
70 Views
Last Modified: 2016-09-12
Hi

I need help to determine or review MS SQL diagram for new build.

What I want to accomplish is HA and HP MS SQL cluster build.

That would contain:
1. load balancer for WEB\Application server that would be hosted on VM, Win 2012r2
2. Side A 2 nodes cluster (active, passive) Physical servers - Win 2012r2
3. Side B 1 warm server for DR. Physical servers - Win 2012r2
4. SUN data storage.

I am wondering is this diagram has any logic.
What can be change to improve availability, performance, DR,   etc.

What hardware components do I need to accomplish this?

Thx, Michal
SQL-Cluster-diagram.png
0
Comment
Question by:michalek19
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • +2
9 Comments
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:Máté Farkas
Comment Utility
For the first look Side B is not a warm it is a cold spare server because your databases are not synchronized from Side A to Side B so in case of failover you have to copy/restore all databases from Side A.

1. HA
If you want to implement a real DR side you have to use a synchronization between Side A and Side B (SQL Server Mirroring or SQL Server Always On or BI-Directional Transactional Replication).
You don't need a FailOver Cluster on Side A (as currently) with shared storage because it increases the Availability but it has no DR role. It is expensive and it does not meet your requirements.


2. HP
Unfortunately there is no standard technology in case of MS SQL Server for scallability (to increase performance). So it is not so easy than in case of Oracle RAC. But if you use Database Mirroring / Always On / Transactional Replication then you can use Seconday Read-Only servers for Reporting, Statistic or backup purposes.

My recommendation: Remove failover cluster on Side A, build a (low bandwith) network between Side A and Side B and build an AlwaysOn cluster between Side A and Side B.
This will keep the current availability level, but give Disaster Recovery role and increase performance because Side B is read-only (for reporting or backup) and posibility for addidional read-only servers.
0
 
LVL 42

Expert Comment

by:kevinhsieh
Comment Utility
Why are you looking at putting SQL server on hardware instead of on VMs?
1
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:Ryan McCauley
Comment Utility
In order for site B to be warm, there needs to be disk replication (or SQL replication) that keeps that copy of the data up to date. If you can use mirroring or log shipping/replication, that would work, or you can use physical disk replication if your SAN supports it. Another option may be to use AlwaysOn - it would make failovers to this site a bit easier to handle, and you can still keep the primary site on an active/passive failover cluster and only move to the secondary site when you decide it's necessary.

We use physical servers for our SQL clusters and I don't like using VMs - in our environment, they haven't been stable or low-latency enough to handle the clustering requirements. This may be a factor of how they're set up or something isolated to our environments, but I don't quite trust VMs for failover clusters from what I've seen.
1
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
I've had similar issues with VMS for SQL Server, esp. with performance.  We were just never able to get good performance out of them.
0
Get up to 2TB FREE CLOUD per backup license!

An exclusive Black Friday offer just for Expert Exchange audience! Buy any of our top-rated backup solutions & get up to 2TB free cloud per system! Perform local & cloud backup in the same step, and restore instantly—anytime, anywhere. Grab this deal now before it disappears!

 

Author Comment

by:michalek19
Comment Utility
Hi All

I agree with Ray and Scott about SQL clustering \failover.
I don't want to use VM for SQL server. I hear a lot of negative comments about performance (stability, low-latency, etc)


Thank you, M
0
 

Author Comment

by:michalek19
Comment Utility
Is there any disadvantage  (pros and cons )   VM  vs  Physical server for MS SQL
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:Ryan McCauley
Comment Utility
Just off the top of my head, here are some advantages of each choice:

Pro for physical:
 - More straightforward troubleshooting (you know you're not sharing hardware)
 - No hypervisor latency (should be small if properly configured, but still exists)
 - Not affected by "noisy neighbors" as it has the hardware dedicated
 - Licensing is more straightforward (VM licensing, even for SQL Server, can cause some confusion and in some cases, requires you have SA to use them the way you want - physical doesn't have those issues)

Pro for VM:
 - More HA options (live migration, for example)
 - Hardware failure not an issue (just boot the VM somewhere else)
 - More easily scaled (if you need to add memory or CPU cores, it can be done with a reboot)

I'd always prefer physical based on what I've seen, but that's admittedly limited - I have peers that run a fully virtualized data center, including SQL Server, and they have no regrets. If you've got a good relationship with the sysadmin/VM admin and you're comfortable with the technology, the extra layer of abstraction may not be an issue - the way I've seen it, it's extra things to troubleshoot and more places to check and see if there's a problem (which is one reason I still prefer physical).
0
 
LVL 42

Accepted Solution

by:
kevinhsieh earned 500 total points
Comment Utility
Physical can make SQL licensing harder, or at least more expensive. If using core licensing, you have to license ALL cores available to the operating system environment. Modern servers have easily 8-12 core per socket. What if you only need four cores, which is the minimum number Microsoft requires you to license (even if you only have 1 core)? Virtualization to the rescue. Instead of trying to find a server with 4 cores, take your hardware, load up a hypervisor, and then give the VM only 4 cores. You can now legally license only 4 cores for that instance of SQL server, even is the hardware has 32 cores.

Virtualization also make moving to new hardware easier. It can be done without even taking the VM offline. You can migrate a running SQL VM from Hyper-V Server 2012 on HPe hardware and spinning rust to Dell hardware, Hyper-V 2016, and NVMe SSD without bringing down the server. Want to move it to PureStorage SSD SAN? No problem. Want to move it to HDS? No problem, and no downtime required. *

*Note, there may be some limitations when moving storage when using shared storage for a HA cluster, depending on how you set it up. SQL doesn't require shared storage depending on how you configure it, so that is less of an issue.
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:Ryan McCauley
Comment Utility
VM definitely has the advantage of easy migration to a new environment, and I agree that it can be cheaper as well - my point is just that it requires Software Assurance and if that's not something you have for your licenses (or don't want to pay for), the license is written in such a way that it's difficult to virtualize. Modern servers do easily have 8 cores/socket, so it can get spendy to go physical as well, and moving to new hardware can add a wrinkle as well if you're installed on a physical server.
0

Featured Post

What Is Threat Intelligence?

Threat intelligence is often discussed, but rarely understood. Starting with a precise definition, along with clear business goals, is essential.

Join & Write a Comment

Everyone has problem when going to load data into Data warehouse (EDW). They all need to confirm that data quality is good but they don't no how to proceed. Microsoft has provided new task within SSIS 2008 called "Data Profiler Task". It solve th…
SQL Server engine let you use a Windows account or a SQL Server account to connect to a SQL Server instance. This can be configured immediatly during the SQL Server installation or after in the Server Authentication section in the Server properties …
This video shows, step by step, how to configure Oracle Heterogeneous Services via the Generic Gateway Agent in order to make a connection from an Oracle session and access a remote SQL Server database table.
Viewers will learn how the fundamental information of how to create a table.

772 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

15 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now