View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old April 17th, 2008, 02:55
chrisplough's Avatar
chrisplough chrisplough is offline
Site Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 821
Blog Entries: 7
Thanks: 53
Thanked 201 Times in 121 Posts
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 10
chrisplough has a spectacular aura aboutchrisplough has a spectacular aura aboutchrisplough has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to chrisplough
Re: Scalability with hw load balancing

Scott,

In addition to Nick's comments (all valid), I did want to address one question directly:
Quote:
We were under the impression that there would be more JMS overhead with active-active, and for this reason we were recommended to go with active-failover. With roughly 300 users, half of those full time, does this seem reasonable? Other factors we should be weighing in?
Other factors do weight in, though active/active is often be too heavy for many customers. Only by looking at the product utilization, data configuration, failover requirements, etc. can you figure out which SCA mode is right for you. The 4 are active/active, active/passive, domain split and functional split. SCA has become very popular recently and I know of customers evaluating all 4 flavors.

Remembering your configuration, I would think that either active/passive (simply for failover), domain split (separating out business units) or functional split would be best. The latter two would give performance gains -- which is going to be important within your environment.

One final note - OTM 6.0 is supposed to improve active/active SCA -- though I will need to test it internally for performance before recommending it to anyone. Not something to bet the farm on, but something to keep in mind.

--Chris
__________________
Chris Plough
MavenWire

www.MavenWire.com
Reply With Quote