 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / March 2006How many SQL 2000 nodes does Microsoft Officially Support on 2003?
I would like to know if I can move my active/passive SQL clusters into a more cost effective four node cluster (3 active and 1 passive). Is there a matrix or document somewhere on Microsoft's site that indicates what configurations are officially supported and considered "best practices"? I found this document http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part4/c1261.mspx which indicated this configuration is good to go on a Windows 2000 Datacenter OS. I believe the document is dated. With the advent of Server 2003, is a four none cluster supported on 2003 Enterprise? Is there a document that backs this up? Continuing on this thread, is there any type of matrix that shows what Microsoft supports from an OS and Application standpoint for two, four, more node clusters? Thank you in advance for any assistance. - John You can build a 4 node cluster on Windows 2003 using SQL 2000. PRB: Virtual SQL Server 2000 installation fails on cluster that has eight nodes http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811054/en-us I have built and operated a 4-node, 3 instance SQL 2000/Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition cluster. The procedures and practices are a bit more complex than a two-node cluster, but nothing radically different.  SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP >I would like to know if I can move my active/passive SQL clusters into a >more [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - John Geoff, Thank you for your response. I had actually seen that article. Articles like that one, combined with several others, gives me the impression that it can be done. However, I have yet to find any article that indicates if it is actually a Microsoft supported configuration. The last thing I want to do is convert all my active/passive cluster pairs to four node clusters and find out that it is only a “best-effort” support in the event of a problem. I am betting this is not the case, but can find no documentation to actually validate it. Do you know if there is any Microsoft documentation that indicates a four node cluster, running on Windows 2003 enterprise edition, with SQL is a supported configuration? Thanks! - John > You can build a 4 node cluster on Windows 2003 using SQL 2000. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > - John In order to get support, your vendor will need to "certify" the cluster. I purchased this gear from Dell using EMC hardware. They certified it with no problems. When you begin the purchasing process, regardless of the vendor, make sure they know you expect a certified configuration. You and the vendor should have a certifiable configuration locked in before starting anything else. I had a Premier support agreement that covered this set up, so I know it is doable. SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Geoff, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> > >> > - John In our case we have previously built active/passive cluster pairs that we would now like to change over to four node clusters and recoup a idle server. This is not a new install as much as a reallocation of resources. As such, I would like to make sure MS will support us. > In order to get support, your vendor will need to "certify" the cluster. I > purchased this gear from Dell using EMC hardware. They certified it with no [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >> > > >> > - John It is still a different cluster configuration than what was installed and certified. Your vendor may be able to help with a re-certification. I would check with their support team. I still can't find anything specific on supported nodes. It used to exist, but I haven't seen that page since well before the SQL 2005 launch. SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > In our case we have previously built active/passive cluster pairs that we > would now like to change over to four node clusters and recoup a idle [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> >> > >> >> > - John I understand, but the vendor (Dell) is only concerned with the OS Cluster. What applications we run on it are our responsibility. My DBA and I both thought there was a doc that used to exist before the 2005 launch that would have answered this question. Thank you for your efforts. > It is still a different cluster configuration than what was installed and > certified. Your vendor may be able to help with a re-certification. I [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > - John No doc that I know of. This would be something for your Microsoft rep. 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. >I understand, but the vendor (Dell) is only concerned with the OS Cluster. > What applications we run on it are our responsibility. My DBA and I both [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - John Found this in MSDN Failover Capability Through Microsoft Cluster Service MSCS failover capability is achieved through redundancy across the multiple connected machines in the cluster, each with independent failure states. Redundancy requires that applications be installed on multiple servers within the cluster. However, an application is online on only one node at any point in time. As that application fails, or that server is taken down, the application is restarted on another node. The Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports up to 8 nodes in a cluster. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sql64/ad_cluste ring64_2ooj.asp Only states DataCenter though??? > I would like to know if I can move my active/passive SQL clusters into a more > cost effective four node cluster (3 active and 1 passive). Is there a matrix [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - John |
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.