Sql Cluster server on win 2003 and sql 2005 ent.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

mecn - 23 Mar 2006 18:33 GMT

Hi,

We are move regular sql 2k sp4 server to a cluster server (Without SAN).
In general, what is the best way do setup: active/active notes or
active/passive?

Thanks

Reply to this Message

Geoff N. Hiten - 23 Mar 2006 18:47 GMT

To quote another MVP: "That Depends"

What are you trying to accomplish? Do you need more than one instance of
SQL Server (I assume that is what you mean by using the incorrect and
obsolete term "Active/Active")? Also, what shared storage system are you
using? If you are not using a SAN, then the shared storage system may
impose limitations of its own on the cluster configuration and capabilities.

Also, you do not need SQL 2005 Enterprise Edition for clustering. Standard
Edition can cluster up to two nodes with four processor sockets each at a
much lower licensing cost.

Signature

Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Thanks

Reply to this Message

mecn - 23 Mar 2006 18:59 GMT

Thanks,

This is the first time i am experience sql 2005 clustering on win2003.
From db point of view. I am preparing to have a cluster server in prodution
and regular sql server offsite for disaster recovery by using log shipping.
I have not idea of sql clustering. we have a regular production sql
2kserver (10 dbs) need to move inot the new cluster server.
I need help on how do I partition the drives(data files are in X drive and
log files in Y dirve....) and what is the better way for us.
our network guys are setting up active/passive. I have no ideas that it will
affect my dbs?

> To quote another MVP: "That Depends"
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Geoff N. Hiten - 23 Mar 2006 19:47 GMT

From your application perspective, there is no change other than having to
point to a new server.

Signature

Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

> Thanks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>>
>>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

mecn - 23 Mar 2006 19:03 GMT

Geoff, I need 2 instances are good enough for me at db point of view.
one fails i have the second one use. Am i right?

Thansk,

> To quote another MVP: "That Depends"
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Geoff N. Hiten - 23 Mar 2006 19:48 GMT

No. Each instance looks and acts like and independent SQL server. When a
host node fails, each instance (up to 16 in a cluster) moves from the failed
node to a working node. The application sees SQL stop and then restart.

Signature

Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

> Geoff, I need 2 instances are good enough for me at db point of view.
> one fails i have the second one use. Am i right?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>>
>>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

mecn - 23 Mar 2006 19:06 GMT

The nmost import thing for me is that How do I tell my network guys to
partition the hard drive. --- On the regular sql server I'd say. I need 3
drives---- 1 for data, 1 for logs and backup dumps. those 3 drives should be
in 3 separate physical drives.
Now for Cluster server ---- Answers?

Thanks

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Geoff N. Hiten - 23 Mar 2006 19:50 GMT

Clustering does not affect how drives should be partitioned. For best
recovery and performance, I use one set of drives for data, one for logs,
and possibly one for tempdb, but only on very high volume systems. Backups
are written directly to a UNC share on another machine. RAID 1+ 0 is best
for performance and reliability, but has the highest cost.

Signature

Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

> The nmost import thing for me is that How do I tell my network guys to
> partition the hard drive. --- On the regular sql server I'd say. I need 3
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

mecn - 23 Mar 2006 20:13 GMT

Thanks a lot, Geoff, It's very helpful

> Clustering does not affect how drives should be partitioned. For best
> recovery and performance, I use one set of drives for data, one for logs,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>>
>>> Thanks

Reply to this Message