Load balancing Availability groups with MSSQL Standard

So i have the current scenario, and it looks to be working fantastically, but i just want to get some input on the configuration. Is it smart? Are there any issues i am not thinking of?

We have MSSQL Standard, and as such, you can only have 1 DB per AG (we have 20 databases), and no Read-Only secondaries. Basically meaning, the primary server is doing ALL the lifting, with the secondary doing alot less. So essentially, you are paying for resources for Node 2, that are sitting at 10% workload, while node 1 is at 70/80% workload. Both nodes are fully licensed with regards to MSSQL Cores.

What i have done, to assist this, is slit the database primaries up. So about 50% of the databases are Primary on node1, while the other 50% are primary on node2.

The Results :

The applications all connect great to either node via their respective listener If a failover occurs, just the databases on the failing node are effected, and failover to the other node (We have tested this fairly well).

Each node, can now split the load, essentially load balancing. It is a manual process to set it up this way and when deploying new DB’s and groups they go to the lighter node. but a small price to pay for “more” hardware punch without much cost (Licenses which we already have and a bit of admin)

What are your guys thoughts on this?

What are good guidelines and principles for designing and balancing superpower stunts in FATE Core?

I want to make a stronger focus on the F in FATE1 in my future campaigns, and that means I’m expecting said campaigns to involve what I usually see broadly referred to as special or superhuman abilities: magical spells, psionics, cyberware, superhero abilities, cinematic mutations and even mundane animal traits (the site doesn’t want me to use more than 5 tags). I have encountered different hacks for handling those, but so far, paradoxically, the approach in the Core book (p. 279-280) seemed to be the simplest and most generally applicable (and subjectively most likeable to me).

Now, the last page says ‘this is art, not science’ about the design of new stunts, but even in arts there are many do’s and do not’s.

Thus I’m asking: what are good guidelines, principles and best practices for designing and balancing superpower Stunts?

Some points refining the answers I seek:

  • These don’t necessarily need to be just superhero powers. Cyberware, psionics, magic, or even some mundane animal abilities fill the niche of ‘can do what humans cannot’ too. Thus, it’s best not to be limited to any one setting or explanation of why they work.

  • I’m most interested in qualitative Stunts that enable doing things that are normally not doable at all. Flight, insubstantiality, ability to Shoot without a weapon, ability to breathe water (in addition to air) indefinitely.

  • Evaluating whether a stunt’s effect should be FP-powered, require a roll, or neither, and what’s a fair tradeoff for changing between these categories.

  • Generally operating in a context where not all PCs and NPCs necessarily possess as many, or in fact any such powers. E.g. a Babylon 5 campaign where 1-2 PCs are telepaths and the rest aren’t; a Ghost in the Shell campaign where one PC refused to install cybernetics and thus lacks the special abilities of other PCs; a mixed Star Wars party with a Jedi/Sith, a combat droid with some odd integral modules, and a few regular folks like smugglers or diplomats. So the guidelines should produce special ability Stunts that are neither better nor worse than mundane Stunts, and no better nor worse than just hoarding Refresh.

Answers that are not helpful:

  • Already known: Being equal to one Refresh but also being more narrowly applicable, a quantitative (+2 effect) Stunt should on average get two uses per minor milestone.

  • Already known: Stunts which allow using one skill instead of another in a narrow circumstance/context/etc.

  • Not constructive: “Just use what works best for your table”. We are a table and we want to know the principles to estimate what would work best, and what should never be even tried etc. (In fact, a big reason for joining RPGSE for me was avoiding this sort of non-answer.)

  • Outside the scope of the question: “Just use Aspect Permissions instead”; not only are Aspect Permissions worthy of a separate question, but also this answer says nothing on the topic of actually designing Stunts.

1 FATE = Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment.

Do I need identical servers for load balancing?

I am new to using AWS and web hosting in general. Let’s say I currently have a single server running a website, and the traffic starts to grow to a point I need to use load balancing. Assuming my current server is running on an EC2 instance with Ubuntu, and an Apache server with all the website files inside the /var/www/ folder. If I want to add load balancing, do I need to create an EC2 instance with the same website files copied to it? Or I just need to create an empty EC2 instance and the rest is done automatically? A bit confused as to how it would work.

How do I optimize my Python code for balancing a centrifuge with a given input size?

So, the problem is, given an input N as the size of a centrifuge, I need to find out the number of balanced configurations. The full description is here.

Centrifuge is a piece of equipment that puts multiple test tubes in rotation at very high speeds. It consists of a cylindrical rotor with holes situated evenly along the circumference of the rotor. Because the device is operating at high speeds, the center of mass of all tubes must coincide with the center of the rotor. We assume all tubes have the same mass.

For the sake of simplicity, we also assume that tubes are point masses, fixed firmly to the rotor. All at the same distance from the center. You may safely assume the (x,y) coordinates of tube k are $ R\sin a, R\cos a$ , where $ a = 2\pi\frac{k}{n}$

The problem is: Given a centrifuge with N holes and K tubes, is it possible to balance it?

example 1: given N = 6 possible values for K are 2,3,4,6.

example 2: given N = 12, it is possible to balance 5 tubes: put 3 evenly dispersed (every 4th hole), then find a pair of opposite unoccupied holes and insert remaining 2 tubes there.

example 3: given N = 10, it is impossible to balance 7 tubes: put 5 evenly dispersed, and there’s no opposite unoccupied holes left!


Line 1: An integer N for the capacity of the centrifuge.


Line 1: An integer M for the number of different possible values of K.

This is my code:

import numpy as np  N=int(input()) angle = 2*np.pi/N z = complex(np.cos(angle), np.sin(angle))   import itertools combs = [] lst = range(1,N) for i in range(2, N-1):     combs.append(i)     els = [list(x) for x in itertools.combinations(lst, i)]     combs.append(els)   count=1 lis = [] while count<=len(combs):     for a in range(len(combs[count])):         s=0         for b in range(len(combs[count][a])):             s+=z**combs[count][a][b]         if abs(s)<1e-10:             lis.append(combs[count][a])     count+=2   lengths = [] for i in lis:     if len(i) not in lengths:         lengths.append(len(i))  print(len(lengths)+1) 

The code works fine, but slows down after input size of above 20, and is practically unusable after the input grows to 50 or above, due to the for loops. How do I optimize it?

Design Scaling Web Service with Backup, Failover, Monitoring and Load Balancing


I am planning a large-scale web service that is accessed by maximum 5000 people at the same time and the total user amount would be 30k or something in that dimension.

Now with that big size we need backups, if possible we should also do load-balancing and monitor the servers. My current experience is with Apache Web Servers and sites that have maximum 5000 people in a month or even a year.

To the web service: I am still determining the best framework to use. The database will…

Design Scaling Web Service with Backup, Failover, Monitoring and Load Balancing