Possible to make RS part of a failover Cluster? SQL 2000

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Nina - 11 Oct 2005 16:35 GMT

Hi,

I am not able to install Reporting Services (RS) on a Web Farm, but would
like to get it installed and configured on a active/passive Failover Cluster.

What do you think about the following scenario?

1. Install RS on one server and create the databases on the SQL Server
Cluster.
2. Install RS on the second server.
3. Configure the second RS to use the clustered database.
4. Copy the encryption key from the RS installation that created the
databases.
5. Apply the encryption key to the RS installation that did not create the
database.
6. Create RS service as a generic service for the Cluster.

I have not tested this yet, but in theory it should work or?

Reply to this Message

Linchi Shea - 12 Oct 2005 05:57 GMT

That may work, but I would not recommend it. I certainly wouldn't try it.
The reason you run SQL Server in a cluster is for high availability. Mixing
your IIS and RS with the SQL Server cluster seems to compromise high
availability, if not defeat the purpose. You may find money well spent on a
separate RS box or two, considering potential support and maintenance
headache you may have otherwise.

Linchi

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> I have not tested this yet, but in theory it should work or?

Reply to this Message

Nina - 12 Oct 2005 15:21 GMT

Thanks Linchi,

I have been doing some more reading. And it seems like some people have made
it “kind of work” , but there is no “One Documentation” on this. And the
information I find is a bit questionable.. and like you say, it can cause
some serious headaches…

I also read that making configuring RS as part of a failover cluster is not
supported by Microsoft. They even do not recommend to make IIS part of a
failover cluster.

I understand that buying one new server or two is ok, but not when you have
four environments, and each would need at least one.

Need to have a think about this one..

Nina

> That may work, but I would not recommend it. I certainly wouldn't try it.
> The reason you run SQL Server in a cluster is for high availability. Mixing
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> >
> > I have not tested this yet, but in theory it should work or?

Reply to this Message

giulio211271@hotmail.com - 26 Oct 2005 16:44 GMT

If you ever test it or find another solution, could you kindly share it with the world?

Reply to this Message