|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server General > February 2005 > Help | Biztalk configuration in 2 machines
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Help | Biztalk configuration in 2 machines
|
|
|
| Hi All,
I have carried out Biztalk server installation in 2 different boxes to try
and create a Production like setup.
I have configuration them work in a Biztalk group. When carrying out the
first configuration, I created a group with SSO master as YES. For the
second, I made it join the group with Master SSO option as No.
The configuration information of box A is as follows.
• Master SSO server with the SSO database.
• Master Message box database.
• All the other Biztalk Server databases.
• Default Biztalkserver host : BiztalkServerApplication
• BiztalkServerIsolatedHost
The configuration information on box B is as follows.
• Slave SSO server with no SSO database.
• Slave message box database (scaled out to this box).
• Default Biztalkserver host : BiztalkServerApplication
• BiztalkServerIsolatedHost
• For database settings, it point to box A.
I carried out few simple test scenarios
1) I disabled / stopped the default host in box B but Box A was able to
process any request. - Passed
2) I disabled / stopped the default host in Box A, but Box B was able to
process any request – Passed.
3) I made the master Message box database in Box A OFFLINE, hoping that the
slave in Box B will handle any incoming request. Failed . The default host in
Box A and Box B automatically stopped.
4) I made the slave Message box database in Box B OFFLINE, hoping that the
master in Box A will handle any incoming request. Failed . The default host
in Box A and Box B automatically stopped.
In general, when I take the message box database offline (in either A or B)
(for testing database fault tolerance), the default host instance in A and B
stops automatically and does not process any incoming request.
How to handle this scenario? Please advice. This information is critical for
my project. Many thanks!
| |
| Matt Milner 2005-02-15, 2:47 am |
| Secondary/slave message box databases are not meant as a high availabilty
mechanism; they are intended to help you scale out your architecture. If
you want failover, use a SQL cluster for your message box. Also, scaling
out to two message boxes is generally not recommended. If you need the
scale, go to three message box databases where the master does not have
publishing enabled.
Matt
"red" <red@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19EFF3B8-351D-4589-BA3E-F993F7B55856@microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I have carried out Biztalk server installation in 2 different boxes to try
> and create a Production like setup.
>
> I have configuration them work in a Biztalk group. When carrying out the
> first configuration, I created a group with SSO master as YES. For the
> second, I made it join the group with Master SSO option as No.
>
> The configuration information of box A is as follows.
> . Master SSO server with the SSO database.
> . Master Message box database.
> . All the other Biztalk Server databases.
> . Default Biztalkserver host : BiztalkServerApplication
> . BiztalkServerIsolatedHost
>
> The configuration information on box B is as follows.
> . Slave SSO server with no SSO database.
> . Slave message box database (scaled out to this box).
> . Default Biztalkserver host : BiztalkServerApplication
> . BiztalkServerIsolatedHost
> . For database settings, it point to box A.
>
> I carried out few simple test scenarios
>
> 1) I disabled / stopped the default host in box B but Box A was able to
> process any request. - Passed
> 2) I disabled / stopped the default host in Box A, but Box B was able to
> process any request - Passed.
> 3) I made the master Message box database in Box A OFFLINE, hoping that
> the
> slave in Box B will handle any incoming request. Failed . The default host
> in
> Box A and Box B automatically stopped.
> 4) I made the slave Message box database in Box B OFFLINE, hoping that the
> master in Box A will handle any incoming request. Failed . The default
> host
> in Box A and Box B automatically stopped.
>
> In general, when I take the message box database offline (in either A or
> B)
> (for testing database fault tolerance), the default host instance in A and
> B
> stops automatically and does not process any incoming request.
>
> How to handle this scenario? Please advice. This information is critical
> for
> my project. Many thanks!
| |
|
| Hi Matt,
Thanks for the information. Can you throw some light (if you would know) on
how to implement clustering for the Biztalk server databases. Which type of
clustering would be the recomended ex: wolf pack etc. Any pointers to
documentation will be great.
Regards,
red
"Matt Milner" wrote:
> Secondary/slave message box databases are not meant as a high availabilty
> mechanism; they are intended to help you scale out your architecture. If
> you want failover, use a SQL cluster for your message box. Also, scaling
> out to two message boxes is generally not recommended. If you need the
> scale, go to three message box databases where the master does not have
> publishing enabled.
>
> Matt
>
>
> "red" <red@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:19EFF3B8-351D-4589-BA3E-F993F7B55856@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
| |
| Matt Milner 2005-02-16, 2:47 am |
| Most places I work with use standard Windows clustering for their SQL Server
clusters. Generally in smaller installs this means an active/active setup
where some of the databases are on each server and failover to the other.
There are whitepapers and good documentation on setting up windows cluster
services for this out on Microsoft.com. The Biztalk documentation also has
good documentation on clustering the Master Secret Server for failover as
well.
Matt
"red" <red@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74F325D0-EA22-482C-8043-E8DA4A314621@microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for the information. Can you throw some light (if you would know)
> on
> how to implement clustering for the Biztalk server databases. Which type
> of
> clustering would be the recomended ex: wolf pack etc. Any pointers to
> documentation will be great.
>
> Regards,
> red
>
> "Matt Milner" wrote:
>
| |
|
| Thanks again
"Matt Milner" wrote:
> Most places I work with use standard Windows clustering for their SQL Server
> clusters. Generally in smaller installs this means an active/active setup
> where some of the databases are on each server and failover to the other.
> There are whitepapers and good documentation on setting up windows cluster
> services for this out on Microsoft.com. The Biztalk documentation also has
> good documentation on clustering the Master Secret Server for failover as
> well.
>
> Matt
>
>
> "red" <red@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:74F325D0-EA22-482C-8043-E8DA4A314621@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|