Cluster services overhead

Consider the scenario ...
Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks
Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks BUT in a clustered environment
We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
clustering be causing the overhead?
TIA,
Jack
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to =
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are =
you running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by =
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered =
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the =
instances configured to use the same amount of resources? =20
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to =
the .clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there =
will have additional comments orideas.
--=20
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>=20
> Consider the scenario ...
>=20
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks=20
>=20
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
>=20
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance=20
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,=20
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for=20
> clustering be causing the overhead?
>=20
> TIA,
> Jack
>
|||I have never felt the presence of clustering on any of my SQL clusters. The
cluster service has such a small footprint. Could it be that you are not
comparing like DBs?
Cheers,
Rod
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OYr8Ip9TEHA.716@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are you
running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the
instances configured to use the same amount of resources?
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to the
..clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there will have
additional comments orideas.
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>
|||I am unfamiliar with the Compaq hardware mentioned, but I do know that
hardware that uses SCSI technology or host controller based caching can
suffer greatly in a clustered environment. All host caching has to be
turned off in a clustered environment to avoid data integrity problems.
This can severely impact disk performacne, especially with disk writes in a
RAID-5 configuration. While this may not apply to your circumstance, it is
the primary reason I do not recommend clustering with SCSI hardware.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>