Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines

5 posts in General Discussion Last posting was on 2003-05-02 18:32:52.0Z
Doug Stone Posted on 2003-05-01 16:15:34.0Z
From: "Doug Stone" <nospamdstone@res-q.com>
Subject: Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:15:34 -0700
Lines: 17
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-64-164-172-130.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 64.164.172.130
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums-2-dub.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:974
Article PK: 2964

Hi. I've heard folks at iAnywhere recommend that multiple databases be
served by the same ASA instance.
What is the "downside" to having, for instance, three independant ASA
services serving three database files?
If one instance serves multiple database files more efficiently than
multiple instances serving multiple files, then can you provide some detail
about the additional overhead required by the 'multiple instance approach.'
I find having a separate engine for each file to be more convienient, when,
for instance, stopping and starting test, training and demo databases.

Thanks,
Doug


Greg Fenton Posted on 2003-05-01 16:27:38.0Z
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:27:38 -0400
From: Greg Fenton <greg.fenton.NO.SPAM@ianywhere.com>
Organization: iAnywhere Solutions Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines
References: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub>
In-Reply-To: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <#aOaq6$DDHA.286@forums-1-dub>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: gfenton-t23.sybase.com 172.31.140.220
Lines: 34
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums-1-dub.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:975
Article PK: 2966


Doug Stone wrote:
> What is the "downside" to having, for instance, three independant ASA
> services serving three database files?

The down side is that each instance needs to have its own
resources. For example, each instance needs its own:
- cache
- threads
- network communications
- etc...

Having all of the databases under one instance shares one set of
resources (though the resources used may be larger than a single
database on a single engine).

BTW: In a development environment, I typically have one database
per engine.

You will want your full-system test and production environments
to have the same configuration in order that your tests match
what you will be doing in production.

One downside to sharing a single engine is that you need to
specify the database name in your connection string. However, I
*strongly* advise that this is done anyway because if down the
road you decide to run multiple dbs on a single engine you don't
want to have to modify your existing client configuration or
application.

Hope this helps,
greg.fenton
--
Greg Fenton
Consultant, Solution Services, iAnywhere Solutions
--------
Visit the iAnywhere Solutions Developer Community
Whitepapers, TechDocs, Downloads
http://www.ianywhere.com/developer/


Doug Stone Posted on 2003-05-02 18:10:59.0Z
From: "Doug Stone" <nospamdstone@res-q.com>
References: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub> <#aOaq6$DDHA.286@forums-1-dub>
Subject: Re: Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:10:59 -0700
Lines: 51
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <#0LNNbNEDHA.314@forums-2-dub>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: user-112vkdk.biz.mindspring.com 66.47.209.180
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums-2-dub.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:978
Article PK: 3333

Greg:
Hi. With three database files being served by one ASA engine, do you have
any problems stopping and starting individual databases?
Have you ever found that stop and start operations with the single engine
configuaration will affect the other databases?
Thanks,
Doug

"Greg Fenton" <greg.fenton.NO.SPAM@ianywhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23aOaq6$DDHA.286@forums-1-dub...
> Doug Stone wrote:
> > What is the "downside" to having, for instance, three independant ASA
> > services serving three database files?
>
> The down side is that each instance needs to have its own
> resources. For example, each instance needs its own:
> - cache
> - threads
> - network communications
> - etc...
>
> Having all of the databases under one instance shares one set of
> resources (though the resources used may be larger than a single
> database on a single engine).
>
> BTW: In a development environment, I typically have one database
> per engine.
>
> You will want your full-system test and production environments
> to have the same configuration in order that your tests match
> what you will be doing in production.
>
> One downside to sharing a single engine is that you need to
> specify the database name in your connection string. However, I
> *strongly* advise that this is done anyway because if down the
> road you decide to run multiple dbs on a single engine you don't
> want to have to modify your existing client configuration or
> application.
>
> Hope this helps,
> greg.fenton
> --
> Greg Fenton
> Consultant, Solution Services, iAnywhere Solutions
> --------
> Visit the iAnywhere Solutions Developer Community
> Whitepapers, TechDocs, Downloads
> http://www.ianywhere.com/developer/
>


Greg Fenton Posted on 2003-05-02 18:19:24.0Z
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 14:19:24 -0400
From: Greg Fenton <greg.fenton.NO.SPAM@ianywhere.com>
Organization: iAnywhere Solutions Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines
References: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub> <#aOaq6$DDHA.286@forums-1-dub> <#0LNNbNEDHA.314@forums-2-dub>
In-Reply-To: <#0LNNbNEDHA.314@forums-2-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <#SSTydNEDHA.331@forums-1-dub>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: gfenton-t23.sybase.com 172.31.140.220
Lines: 22
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums-1-dub.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:979
Article PK: 2968


Doug Stone wrote:
> Hi. With three database files being served by one ASA engine, do you have
> any problems stopping and starting individual databases?
> Have you ever found that stop and start operations with the single engine
> configuaration will affect the other databases?

There is some overhead to starting/stopping a database on a
running engine, but it should not be noticable in the overall
scheme of things (unless you are doing it *alot*).

If you have databases that are getting heavy use, then it might
be worth running them on their own server. This way you can move
the server to a separate machine if necessary.

greg.fenton
--
Greg Fenton
Consultant, Solution Services, iAnywhere Solutions
--------
Visit the iAnywhere Solutions Developer Community
Whitepapers, TechDocs, Downloads
http://www.ianywhere.com/developer/


Breck Carter [TeamSybase] Posted on 2003-05-02 18:32:52.0Z
From: "Breck Carter [TeamSybase]" <NOSPAM__bcarter@risingroad.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple ASA Databases with Multiple Engines
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 14:32:52 -0400
Organization: RisingRoad Professional Services
Reply-To: NOSPAM__bcarter@risingroad.com
Message-ID: <84e5bvkbop2rokau4kl8l7lvqvh3mt1sro@4ax.com>
References: <OdmX91$DDHA.196@forums-2-dub>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: nn003.canpar.ca 204.225.91.43
Lines: 38
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums-1-dub.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:980
Article PK: 2967

<Philosophy>
There is often a world of difference between "two production
databases" and "two databases, for production and test".

In your case, I will bet that your training and demo databases are
supposed to be fairly stable, with fairly predictable load, etcetera.
From your point of view they might both be "production", and putting
them on the same server is probably a good idea.

Your third database, "test", may be another story. You may want to put
it on its own server so you can freely crash that server. You may even
want to put it on its own *machine*, for the same reason: keeping
production at arms-length from test.
</Philosophy>

Breck


and On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:15:34 -0700, "Doug Stone"

<nospamdstone@res-q.com> wrote:

>
>
>Hi. I've heard folks at iAnywhere recommend that multiple databases be
>served by the same ASA instance.
>What is the "downside" to having, for instance, three independant ASA
>services serving three database files?
>If one instance serves multiple database files more efficiently than
>multiple instances serving multiple files, then can you provide some detail
>about the additional overhead required by the 'multiple instance approach.'
>I find having a separate engine for each file to be more convienient, when,
>for instance, stopping and starting test, training and demo databases.
>
>Thanks,
>Doug
>
>

bcarter@risingroad.com
Mobile and Distributed Enterprise Database Applications
http://www.risingroad.com