 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / January 2006SQL 2005 Clustering
Hello, I've set up a few two node active/passive SQL 2000 clusters in the past but now a client is asking for a two node SQL 2005 active/passive cluster. I'm assuming this is still possible in 2005 but just can't seem to find any good resources related to SQL 2005 clustering. Can anyone provide any? What version of SQL 2005 must we be running? Etc.. Many thanks, It isn't Active/Active, it is multi-instance. If your client thinks that clustering is scale-out, he is wrong. You can install a second instance of SQL server on the cluster, but it is completely independent from the first instance. As for SQL 2005 Editions and clustering, there are some differences. Standard Edition supports up to two node clusters. Enterprise Edition supports up to the OS limits (currently 8 nodes using Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition.) Here is the Edition features comparison page: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx  SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Many thanks, As far as SQL Server 2005 clustering goes, almost all of the changes from 2000 are internal. So, there are few external differences that you would even notice between 2000 clustering and 2005 clustering. SignatureMike http://www.solidqualitylearning.com Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person or entity either by inference or direct reference. > It isn't Active/Active, it is multi-instance. If your client thinks that > clustering is scale-out, he is wrong. You can install a second instance [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Many thanks, I agree on the technical implementation being very similar. IMHO, the biggest difference is the licensing costs. Clustering with Standard Edition is a huge cost savings. On a "typical" four-processor per host, two node cluster, you are can usually save the cost of the host hardware nodes just in license savings. That is not a trivial change. You can even build a decent two-node, two proc per host system with good performance for less than $60K, including the shared storage system. Now this isn't a high-performance system, but it is a lot better than anything comparable you could build with SQL 2000. SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > As far as SQL Server 2005 clustering goes, almost all of the changes from > 2000 are internal. So, there are few external differences that you would [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> >>> Many thanks, I need to build a 2 node active/passive SQL 2005 cluster. Are there any websites that list hardware packages for this? Thanks, Jim > I agree on the technical implementation being very similar. IMHO, the > biggest difference is the licensing costs. Clustering with Standard Edition [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >>> > >>> Many thanks, Contact your favorite hardware major manufacturers. Most have clustering experts that can help. You don't want to do this yourself. Here is a good starting place on the Microsoft web site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKit/c1 4fd478-397a-47eb-ae15-0be4c5a322e0.mspx SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP >I need to build a 2 node active/passive SQL 2005 cluster. Are there > any websites that list hardware packages for this? [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >> >>> >> >>> Many thanks, I was thinking about using a DL380/MSA500 prepackaged cluster, but combining two DL385 (Opteron dual core) solution with MSA500 really caught my eye. Anyone like to share their experience with either of these solutions? Thanks, Jim I have a client that installed a DL385/MSA500 SQL 2005 x64 Dual-Core Opteron cluster on my advice a few months ago. They are pleased with the price and performance. They will likely deploy one or two more such clusters to other data centers later this year. I am specifying two possibilities for another client, either a similar system or a DL585 (quad processor) based cluster. From a licensing perspective, Dual-Core is definitely a huge win. I have used the MSA500 in a stand-alone configuration for a while and am satisfied with its performance and stability. To be fair, I am also using the Dell Intel Dual-core PowerEdge 2850 and it works very well. Unfortunately, Dell does not have an equivalent to the MSA500 at this time. However, they do sell the EMC Clariion line, which is a very good mid to high-end cluster storage solution. SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP >I was thinking about using a DL380/MSA500 prepackaged cluster, but > combining two DL385 (Opteron dual core) solution with MSA500 really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jim Hi Geoff, Thanks for the insight. We're going ahead with the same combination. I'll post some impressions when we're up and running. -Jim > I have a client that installed a DL385/MSA500 SQL 2005 x64 Dual-Core Opteron > cluster on my advice a few months ago. They are pleased with the price and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > Jim I actually just completed deploying a 2 node active/passive Exchange 2003 cluster for a client running two DL385's to a back end EMC CX500 SAN. Very impressed with the new DL385's. >I was thinking about using a DL380/MSA500 prepackaged cluster, but > combining two DL385 (Opteron dual core) solution with MSA500 really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.