 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / October 2006SQL 2005 cluster
Overview: We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with one instance of SQL 2005 and 150 GB of SAN disk. This is considered the production node with failover to the second node (Passive). The passive node also has 8 GB of RAM, 150 GB of SAN disk, and has 4 local test instances of SQL 2005, and the failover production instance. We think that we will need to limit the 4 instances to 5 GB of RAM (Local Instance 1 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 2 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 3 - 1 GB, Local Instance 4 - 1GB). This will leave us 2 GB for the failover instance and 1 GB for the OS. For extended outages, we would like to be able to shutdown the local instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access more than the 2GB reserved. Questions: - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql and allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are available to allow this configuration? - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local instances each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? - Are their white papers describing best practices? Thanks, don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com Comments Inline > Overview: > We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access more > than the 2GB reserved. SAN resources are not local per node. The LUNS are presented to all host nodes. The Cluster service arbitrates ownership and control. LUNS are mapped to clustered disk resources and are specific to each SQL instance. > Questions: > - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql and > allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are > available to allow this configuration? There is no technical issue, but there is the general guideline not to mix production and development/test systems. > - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local instances > each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? No.. As I mentioned above, the disk resources are tied to a specific instance of SQL. You can create a LUN and present it only to the second node. Do not create it as a clustered disk resource and it will look like a locally attached disk. The you can use subfolders for each instance.  SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > - Are their white papers describing best practices? > > Thanks, > > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com Geoff, Are there any memory setting guidelines with regard to the multiple instance passive node? Are there any white papers on configurations of this sort? SignatureDon Ramler > Comments Inline > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com I don't know of any right away. As for "active" and "passive" nodes, all nodes are equivalent so the choice of current host is arbitrary. You can set it as a preference. Using a normally inactive node as a host for other instances is not recommended, so I doubt there are any references on how to do that. SignatureGeoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Geoff, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> > >> > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com |
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.