Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
ScottHi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphi
a
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fib
re
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it syn
c
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficien
t
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that on
ce
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scottthis might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Beginner's question

I just installed SQL Server 2005, Office 2007, and the add-in, but when I check services.msc, I don't see the SQL Server Analysis Services. Does anyone know how I can get this to load? Also, when I run the server configuration utility in the DM add-in folder, do you know what I should put in the server name to get it to run off my hard disk and not a server? local host doesn't seem to work. Thanks in advance!

Which edition of SQL Server 2005 did you install? If you installed the express edition, Analysis Services is not included in that edition. To access Data Mining features, you can install an eval edition of SQL Server 2005 from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb462637.aspx

The DM Addins needs Analysis Server to run and cannot run off a local file from your hard drive. You'll need Analysis Server installed to use the addins from Office.

|||I have the evaluation version, but don't know how to set it up to have my hard drive as the server. Do you know how I can get the SQL analysis services to run so that it will appear in services.msc?
|||While installing the evaluation edition, did you select Analysis Services as as installation option? You can go to Add/Remove Programs, find Microsoft SQL Server 2005, select Modify and check the list of products installed. Analysis Services should be one of the options.|||Thanks a lot for you help. If I had 50 products and 60,000 different customers with different assortments of products per customers (basket), do you know how microsoft's associate function can help determine the association rules that have the highest probability of occurring? Thanks again.
|||Are you referring to the PredictAssociation function? Or just how to setup the mining model to do a market-basket analysis?|||Market-basket analysis would be great. Is there any way to get it to give the probabilities of Product C given that Product A and B are also sold, or will it just be able to do the probability of product B given that A is sold? Thanks
|||

It does both. The Association Rules algorithm uses all rules that "fire" for the input set. For example if you had rules such as

A->C

A,B->C

A,D->C

and you had A,B, and D in your input, all three rules would "fire". The resultant probability is based on the probability of the rules, and may not match any one in particular.

|||So would I just select the 50,000 clients and 50 products and then run the associate function? Do you know how long it would take for the associate or clustering feature to run with this amount of data on a local hard drive?
|||

The amount of time to perform such an operation is not long. However, reading your original question - "the association rules with the highest probability of occurring", the answer is simply those rules whose LHS itemsets have the highest support. Take for example you have rules

A -> C

A,B -> D

A,B -> C

A, B, C -> E

Say you have 50,000 cases and you have support(A)=5,000, support (A,B) = 2,000, support(A,B,C) = 1000.

The probability given any input case of each rule firing would then be

10% A->C

4% A,B->D

4% A,B->C

2% A,B,C->E