This isn’t in the GUI (yet?), so don’t open it up and expect magic mushrooms and smiley-face pills to pour out at you on a rainbow. If you want to use Direct Seeding, you’ll have to script things. But it’s pretty easy! If I can do it, anyone can.
I’m not going to go through setting up a Domain Controller or Clustering or installing SQL here. I assume you’re already lonely enough to know how to do all that.
The script itself is simple, though. I’m going to create my Availability Group for my three lovingly named test databases, and add a listener. The important part to notice is SEEDING_MODE = AUTOMATIC. This will create an Availability Group called SQLAG01, with one synchronous, and one asynchronous Replica.
In SQL Server 2012 and 2014, creating an Availability Group could take a significant amount of work. One of the more tedious tasks is setting up your replica databases. This is because that you need to restore your database to your replica node in a state close enough to the primary to allow synchronization to happen. It can take several log backup restores to hit that magic window where you can join the database on the secondary node. Then, you get to do it again on the next replica!
Enter direct seeding in 2016. With this feature you no longer have to do any of the restores. You simply create your replicas with direct seeding enabled, then when you add a database to the AG, SQL Server will directly seed the database to your replica nodes. It’s surprisingly simple.
This sounds pretty interesting.
Our 3rd party monitoring solution collects blocking information, but not for system threads. There was no additional information available for this blocking incident, but I could see that the system thread was a background process with the command “UNKNOWN TOKEN” and was sitting in a wait type of “HADR_WORK_QUEUE”. It was clearly the worker thread for the AG of a specific database.
A little later, we had blocking again involving that same thread, but this time, the AG worker thread was blocking the log backup thread. Seemed logical that if the worker thread could block the log backup, then the log backup could have also blocked the worker thread, but still it did not make sense to me.
This is one of those cases in which the answer makes perfect sense after the fact, but can be maddening until then.
In SQL Server 2016, Distributed Transactions are only supported if the transaction is distributed across multiple instances of SQL Server. It is NOT supported if the transaction is distributed between different databases within the same instance of SQL Server. So in the picture above, if the databases are on separate SQL instances it will work, but not if the databases reside on the same instance which is more likely.
This seems like a half-finished job. We’ll see if Microsoft improves on this later.
We have a lovely Availability Group that holds A LOT of data that is broken into partitions. We have 42 partitions and they are usually moving information around daily between them. The index rebuilds on them were making our logs HUGE because the the Availability Group was taking too long to catch up, we tried both Synchronous and Asynchronous mode. We would see all kinds of errors. We were doing horrible things like auto shrinking our transaction log after the indexing finished and ignoring alarms during the time the database was rebuilding. We had requested more and more space from our storage team and sometimes the job wouldn’t even finish because it ran out of space. Our first idea was to split out the index rebuilds so that we could do one partition at a time.
I’d call this a bit of a hack, but if it’s documented and it does the job better than any known alternative, it’s a good decision.
Last week, I received an alert that the percentage of transaction log in use on one of our production databases was increasing more than it should have been. I’ll refer to this database as DB1 from here on in. It had reached 18%, which is above the normal 5-10% we like to see it at. DB1 is in an Always On Availability Group so if the log usage jumps we jump.
The first thing I checked was that the log backups were running. We use Ola Hallengren’s maintenance solution to manage our backups. The backup jobs were running without error.
The next thing to check was the log_reuse_wait_desc column in sys.databases.
The highlighted row is the row for DB1. A log_reuse_wait of 2 means there were no changes to backup since the last log backup. If that were the case then why was my transaction log slowly filling like an unattended bath?
Read on to learn more. James also has a link to a (closed/won’t-fix) Connect item.
What is a distributed availability group? Distributed availability groups allows you to create two different AGs on different Windows Server failover clusters (WSFCs) but join them together – if you will, an AG of AGs. This is great for disaster recovery scenarios where you do not want to worry (more than you should) about things like voters and quorum in a single WSFC which could make the configuration more complex. This also allows for different versions of Windows Server (one WSFC is Windows Server 2012 R2 and another Windows Server 2016). Heck, it could even facilitate migrations to new hardware/the public cloud/virtualization assuming the same major version of SQL Server. It’s a cool feature. You can only manually fail over the AG between the WSFCs, but that’s OK, and you do need a listener for each AG. If you do not plan on using a listener, you cannot create a distributed AG.
Side note: when I read DAG, I think directed acyclical graph. Maybe I’m just weird that way…
Main note: the idea of “seeding” an Availability Group sounds wonderful.
You work with Database Mirroring or AlwaysOn AG, and you want to make sure your end users work only on the secondary server. How should you do that?
This solution feels a little hacky to me. There’s enough value in it that I could see companies doing this, but it’d be nice if there were an easier way.
This architecture can be used when your organization does not value their secondary data center the same as the primary. It is a best practice to have matched or similar hardware between your primary and disaster recovery sites but that is not always possible. When costs need to be reduced it is better to have one failover server that you know can handle the work load rather than two servers which are under powered. Under powered hardware can easily become an effective outage if they cause timeouts as soon as a production work load is placed on them.
For many small to medium-sized enterprises, this might be the easiest route to sell to management—it’s hard to get management to have “redundant” servers which normally don’t get used.
The Availability Group will handle the data synchronization between the data centers. Asynchronous mode is recommend due to potential network latency hindering primary site performance. With the combination of these two features, you meet HA with the FCI’s automatic failover locally and DR with manual failover of the Availability Group between sites.
Derik’s conclusion is important: this isn’t the type of thing a brand new accidental DBA should try to build; there are a lot of moving parts here. But if you want a robust solution and have the support people available to handle the relative complexity, this is a good option.