Active/Active cluster to same default instance

We have a 2 node SQL2K active/passive cluster on WIN2K3 OS configured with
single virtual server with deafult instance. What is the procedure to change
this to active/active cluster so that we could use both servers processing
power to the same virtual server default instance?
"Active/Active" refers to multiple instances running on multiple nodes in a
cluster. SQL does not have any native support for sharing physical database
files between multiple active instances of SQL Server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Rajan" <Rajan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5D9906BB-7503-425A-AB35-279EAF0D2D57@.microsoft.com...
> We have a 2 node SQL2K active/passive cluster on WIN2K3 OS configured with
> single virtual server with deafult instance. What is the procedure to
> change
> this to active/active cluster so that we could use both servers processing
> power to the same virtual server default instance?
|||This is part of the terminology misunderstanding concerning clustering.
Generally speaking, Active/Passive clusters are what Microsoft considers as
their cluster model (Shared Nothing). Active/Active clusters, on the other
hand, are when the cluster members all share the disk drives, network, and
IP resources and provide load balancing capabilities like Oracle's RAC
systems, or quick failover scenarios like Neverfail or Polyserve.
Unfortunately, Microsoft also used this terminology, but since MSCS is a
shared nothing model, only one member can own resources at a time. What
they meant by A/P and A/A is single and multi-instancing, respectively.
So, the short answer is No, you can't load balance with MSCS SQL Server
Failover clusters.
If you want to load-balance, then you have to build a Server Federation,
which is a system distribution technology, which requires application
redirection and database partitioning to function. It is not truly
load-balancing like MS NLB.
You CAN, however, have multiple instances, but each would have its own
dedicated disk, Network Names, and IP Addresses and Ports assigned to them.
If you can configure your application to direct to multiple databases, and
then have these database distributed on multiple SQL Server instances, then
you can achieve some workload distribution in a clustered configuration
without have to resort to a full Server Federation.
Anthony Thomas

"Rajan" <Rajan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5D9906BB-7503-425A-AB35-279EAF0D2D57@.microsoft.com...
> We have a 2 node SQL2K active/passive cluster on WIN2K3 OS configured with
> single virtual server with deafult instance. What is the procedure to
change
> this to active/active cluster so that we could use both servers processing
> power to the same virtual server default instance?
|||Thanks all for the detailed information - Rajan.
"Anthony Thomas" wrote:

> This is part of the terminology misunderstanding concerning clustering.
> Generally speaking, Active/Passive clusters are what Microsoft considers as
> their cluster model (Shared Nothing). Active/Active clusters, on the other
> hand, are when the cluster members all share the disk drives, network, and
> IP resources and provide load balancing capabilities like Oracle's RAC
> systems, or quick failover scenarios like Neverfail or Polyserve.
> Unfortunately, Microsoft also used this terminology, but since MSCS is a
> shared nothing model, only one member can own resources at a time. What
> they meant by A/P and A/A is single and multi-instancing, respectively.
> So, the short answer is No, you can't load balance with MSCS SQL Server
> Failover clusters.
> If you want to load-balance, then you have to build a Server Federation,
> which is a system distribution technology, which requires application
> redirection and database partitioning to function. It is not truly
> load-balancing like MS NLB.
> You CAN, however, have multiple instances, but each would have its own
> dedicated disk, Network Names, and IP Addresses and Ports assigned to them.
> If you can configure your application to direct to multiple databases, and
> then have these database distributed on multiple SQL Server instances, then
> you can achieve some workload distribution in a clustered configuration
> without have to resort to a full Server Federation.
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Rajan" <Rajan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5D9906BB-7503-425A-AB35-279EAF0D2D57@.microsoft.com...
> change
>
>