> for you. Althought each of the individual servers have their
> own set of IP addresses. A virtual SQL Server is also created
> with it's own ip. All the CF Servers are pointed to the
> virtual SQL Server. When a SQL Server fail over occurs the CF
> Servers continue to communicate to the database through the
> same ip addresss. So therefore a seperate VLAN to achive the
> same thing shouldn't be needed. I may be wrong though?
No, I think you're right, if your SQL Server cluster is set up as
"active-active". You should be addressing the cluster itself, not any
individual server in the cluster.
> I suspect if I wait for the five minute timeout to occur the
> old connections will get killed and new ones will be created
> which would then work without a hitch. I can't afford the 5
> minutes of dead time though. I am wondering how much of a
> savings Maintain Connections provides and whether we should
> just nix that options which should solve the problem.
You might consider shortening the time a database connection is maintained.
Maintaining connections does make a pretty big difference with SQL Server,
in my experience. I'd also be concerned if one of your database cluster
members is failing frequently, though - I think that SQL Server's clustering
ability is more useful for load-balancing than it is for failover.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
