Clustering for performance

Hi,
As far as I know, clustering is used to increase availability of SQL Server.
Is it possible to benefit from clustering for performance (load balancing
or...)?
Thanks in advance,
Leila
No, SQL Server Clustering does not load balance a database across servers.
An instance of SQL will only run on any one machine at any time.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OuYWVHYzEHA.1192@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As far as I know, clustering is used to increase availability of SQL
> Server.
> Is it possible to benefit from clustering for performance (load balancing
> or...)?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>

clustered SQL web db

What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
third party solutions that are preferable?
Thanks
jj
SQL Server clustering is probably the best way to go.
"jj" wrote:

> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
> Thanks
> jj
>
>
|||MS clustering is probably the best way to go
"jj" wrote:

> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
> Thanks
> jj
>
>
|||Hi
Windows 2003 Clustering, with SQL Server 2000 running on it.
Once SQL Server 2005 arrives, Database Mirroring with a witness may become
an option.
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/
"dridenour" <dridenour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D561A2F8-E43B-44CC-8E0C-C913E821B63B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> MS clustering is probably the best way to go
> "jj" wrote:
databases[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
|||"jj" <jeff_detoro@.urmc.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:O2yw8iX2EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server
databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
Depends.
What's your budget?
What are your real needs?
(I've found customers often want HA until they realize the cost and then
consider other options.)

> Thanks
> jj
>

clustered SQL web db

What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
third party solutions that are preferable?
Thanks
jjSQL Server clustering is probably the best way to go.
"jj" wrote:
> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
> Thanks
> jj
>
>|||MS clustering is probably the best way to go
"jj" wrote:
> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
> Thanks
> jj
>
>|||Hi
Windows 2003 Clustering, with SQL Server 2000 running on it.
Once SQL Server 2005 arrives, Database Mirroring with a witness may become
an option.
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/
"dridenour" <dridenour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D561A2F8-E43B-44CC-8E0C-C913E821B63B@.microsoft.com...
> MS clustering is probably the best way to go
> "jj" wrote:
> > What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server
databases
> > holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are
there
> > third party solutions that are preferable?
> >
> > Thanks
> > jj
> >
> >
> >|||"jj" <jeff_detoro@.urmc.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:O2yw8iX2EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What is the best way to achieve high availability for a sql server
databases
> holding web data. Is SQL clustering still the preferred option? Are there
> third party solutions that are preferable?
Depends.
What's your budget?
What are your real needs?
(I've found customers often want HA until they realize the cost and then
consider other options.)
> Thanks
> jj
>