|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server General > June 2006 > Clustering BizTalk Server 2006
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 |
Clustering BizTalk Server 2006
|
|
| Sam Vanhoutte 2006-04-10, 7:34 pm |
| Hello,
As we all know, Remote Transactional reads are not possible with MSMQ.
Luckily, it seems that BizTalk 2006 is now clusterable, so we can have the
BizTalk services on the same cluster as the MSMQ installed, to force local
transactional reads.
I very much like the idea, but I have a question that I would like to see
answered before getting started.
I want to have only the MSMQ Receive host clustered, and all other hosts
non-clustered. And because of the fact that clustering is configured on the
host level, this looks possible. But is this possible to have clustered and
non-clustered hosts on the same two machines running?
Can I have this setup:
Host : MSMQReceive : clustered : instances on server BTS1 and BTS2
Host : Processing : non-clustered : instances on server BTS1 and BTS2.
I want to have the Processing host allways running on both servers
(active/active). Is that possible, when the MSDTC is added as a clustered
resource?
Best regards,
Sam Vanhoutte
www.codit.be
| |
| Doug Girard [MSFT] 2006-04-18, 12:46 am |
| Sam,
It is possible to have some hosts clustered, while others are not.
The steps for clustering hosts are available in the "BizTalk Host
Clustering Support" documentation article.
Paraphrasing, you'll have to first cluster MSDTC otherwise you can't even
install BizTalk (installing COM+ components fails). However, MSDTC need
not be in the same resource group where you plan to cluster the BizTalk
hosts. You will then install and configure BizTalk. Then, after creating
hosts AND host instances on all intended machines, you can go to the Admin
MMC Console, Right-click on a host, and select Cluster... to select the
cluster group that you would like to run the host in.
The docs are quite good at describing this in detail.
HTH,
Doug Girard [MSFT]
Note: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
--------------------
>From: "Sam Vanhoutte" <firstname@companyname.be>
>Subject: Clustering BizTalk Server 2006
>Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:30:14 +0200
>Lines: 29
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>Message-ID: <eK$SgXXWGHA.4972@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.biztalk.general
>NNTP-Posting-Host: d5152a79d.access.telenet.be 81.82.167.157
>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.biztalk.general:36397
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.biztalk.general
>
>Hello,
>
>As we all know, Remote Transactional reads are not possible with MSMQ.
>Luckily, it seems that BizTalk 2006 is now clusterable, so we can have the
>BizTalk services on the same cluster as the MSMQ installed, to force local
>transactional reads.
>
>I very much like the idea, but I have a question that I would like to see
>answered before getting started.
>
>I want to have only the MSMQ Receive host clustered, and all other hosts
>non-clustered. And because of the fact that clustering is configured on
the
>host level, this looks possible. But is this possible to have clustered
and
>non-clustered hosts on the same two machines running?
>
>Can I have this setup:
>Host : MSMQReceive : clustered : instances on server BTS1 and BTS2
>Host : Processing : non-clustered : instances on server BTS1 and BTS2.
>
>I want to have the Processing host allways running on both servers
>(active/active). Is that possible, when the MSDTC is added as a clustered
>resource?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Sam Vanhoutte
>www.codit.be
>
>
>
| |
| kailux4 2006-06-30, 1:17 am |
| Doug,
Is this recommende to have clustered and
non-clustered hosts on the same two machines running? or
Or it is better to have them on separate machines
|
|
|
|
|