Cluster Failover

We have a 3rd party vendor application that runs on IIS and connects to a
back end SQL Cluster. Sometimes a user will try and run a commission report
and the SQL server takes a big hit on the CPU's (Dual 2.0 Ghz Xeon's) and I
will get a error in MOM 2005 that the "Server Performance Thresholds
SQLSERVR Process > 90% CPU for 15 minutes" Of course the end user will try
and run it two or three more times taking up more resources.
If I do a fail over to the other SQL server in the cluster the CPU's will
drop down to their normal ranges and everything works fine.
My question is when performing the "failover" that 10 - 15 seconds it takes
to do this what happens to any data that is trying to write to the database?
Is it lost? And can this cause corruption in the database itself?
Thanks!
Failovers don't cause corruption. Rather, any active transactions are
rolled back when the backup node takes over from the primary node.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Scopus69" <Scopus69@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:DF8080ED-0DF2-42C7-B1DA-4D9375D0B2EA@.microsoft.com...
We have a 3rd party vendor application that runs on IIS and connects to a
back end SQL Cluster. Sometimes a user will try and run a commission report
and the SQL server takes a big hit on the CPU's (Dual 2.0 Ghz Xeon's) and I
will get a error in MOM 2005 that the "Server Performance Thresholds
SQLSERVR Process > 90% CPU for 15 minutes" Of course the end user will try
and run it two or three more times taking up more resources.
If I do a fail over to the other SQL server in the cluster the CPU's will
drop down to their normal ranges and everything works fine.
My question is when performing the "failover" that 10 - 15 seconds it takes
to do this what happens to any data that is trying to write to the database?
Is it lost? And can this cause corruption in the database itself?
Thanks!
|||When you mean "rolled back" the transactions are basically held in cache
until the backup server has taken complete control? Is that correct?
One user received the following error during failover in their web session:
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your
network documentation. in Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Is this a concern or only the period before the failover is complete?
Thanks!
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Failovers don't cause corruption. Rather, any active transactions are
> rolled back when the backup node takes over from the primary node.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Scopus69" <Scopus69@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:DF8080ED-0DF2-42C7-B1DA-4D9375D0B2EA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a 3rd party vendor application that runs on IIS and connects to a
> back end SQL Cluster. Sometimes a user will try and run a commission report
> and the SQL server takes a big hit on the CPU's (Dual 2.0 Ghz Xeon's) and I
> will get a error in MOM 2005 that the "Server Performance Thresholds
> SQLSERVR Process > 90% CPU for 15 minutes" Of course the end user will try
> and run it two or three more times taking up more resources.
> If I do a fail over to the other SQL server in the cluster the CPU's will
> drop down to their normal ranges and everything works fine.
> My question is when performing the "failover" that 10 - 15 seconds it takes
> to do this what happens to any data that is trying to write to the database?
> Is it lost? And can this cause corruption in the database itself?
> Thanks!
>
>
|||Not exactly. Anything in cache evaporates. Transactions are written to the
transaction log. If a COMMIT record is not written, then when SQL Server
comes up, all of the work done thus far in that transaction is backed out.
This is true whether you are using a cluster or not.
The network errors go away once SQL Server has come back up again. Clean
apps will try to reconnect.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Scopus69" <Scopus69@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:49B44171-B185-463B-833E-E4190AD923A9@.microsoft.com...
When you mean "rolled back" the transactions are basically held in cache
until the backup server has taken complete control? Is that correct?
One user received the following error during failover in their web session:
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your
network documentation. in Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Is this a concern or only the period before the failover is complete?
Thanks!
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Failovers don't cause corruption. Rather, any active transactions are
> rolled back when the backup node takes over from the primary node.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Scopus69" <Scopus69@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:DF8080ED-0DF2-42C7-B1DA-4D9375D0B2EA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a 3rd party vendor application that runs on IIS and connects to a
> back end SQL Cluster. Sometimes a user will try and run a commission
> report
> and the SQL server takes a big hit on the CPU's (Dual 2.0 Ghz Xeon's) and
> I
> will get a error in MOM 2005 that the "Server Performance Thresholds
> SQLSERVR Process > 90% CPU for 15 minutes" Of course the end user will
> try
> and run it two or three more times taking up more resources.
> If I do a fail over to the other SQL server in the cluster the CPU's will
> drop down to their normal ranges and everything works fine.
> My question is when performing the "failover" that 10 - 15 seconds it
> takes
> to do this what happens to any data that is trying to write to the
> database?
> Is it lost? And can this cause corruption in the database itself?
> Thanks!
>
>