active/active sql node

Hello,
This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster environment.
I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one virtual name such
as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active, it seems to me that
system does not allow me to have something like virtualsql01 and
virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like virtualsql01\xxxx.
My question is that how can we have something like virtualsql01 and
virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe it will be easy for
everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
Thanks.
Your VirtualSQL01 is the default instance for the cluster. Like a
stand-alone server, you only get one default instance, except it is per
cluster, not per node. I avoid the whole default name on a cluster and use
only named instances. That way, I don't have to explain to the developers
why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
> environment. I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one
> virtual name such as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active,
> it seems to me that system does not allow me to have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like
> virtualsql01\xxxx. My question is that how can we have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe
> it will be easy for everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Just want to add that if you already have virutalsql01 in a cluster, you
can't have virtualsql01\xxx in that same cluster. In other words, there can
be only a single SQL instance per virtual server.
Suffice it to say that you are not the only person puzzled by this peculiar
design choice. I for one would much prefer what you wanted, i.e. simply
virtualsql01, virutalsql02, and so on for different SQL instances in a
cluster.
But if you are willing to explicitly use port numbers, you don't have to
force your users to use the format of virtualserver\sqlinstance. Instead,
they can use <fqdn>,<port number> (e.g. nycsql01.nyc.myfirm.com,9876) to
connect. Some people consider using an explicit port number in a connection
string not to be best practice, I should note.
Linchi
"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
> environment. I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one
> virtual name such as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active,
> it seems to me that system does not allow me to have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like
> virtualsql01\xxxx. My question is that how can we have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe
> it will be easy for everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Normally, on a stand-alone system, you would get 1 ServerName (default
instance) and then possibly several named instances ServerName\Instance1,
ServerName\Instance2, . . ., ServerName\Instance15, up to 15 named and 1
default, or 16 namedactually, you can have many more, but Microsoft only
supporting up to 16 total instances, named or default.
The problem with clusters is that each participating node looks like a stand
alone server in that each may host all instances; thus, the binaries and the
naming convention above still applies; however, for a cluster, you have to
create a virtual server resource group for each instance to support the Disk
(which is the critical factor), IP, and Network Name. It is the Network
Name, which knows nothing of SQL Server instances, that must each be unique
within the cluster installation.
So, you end up with unique network names because of clustering, which is a
restriction even before SQL Server is installed, and unique instance names
because of multiple concurrent SQL Server hosting on any one failover node.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
environment.
> I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one virtual name
such
> as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active, it seems to me
that
> system does not allow me to have something like virtualsql01 and
> virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like virtualsql01\xxxx.
> My question is that how can we have something like virtualsql01 and
> virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe it will be easy
for
> everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Thanks to everyone, very straight to the point, keen and concise.
Naruphon
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23AOg2vi2FHA.1576@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Normally, on a stand-alone system, you would get 1 ServerName (default
> instance) and then possibly several named instances ServerName\Instance1,
> ServerName\Instance2, . . ., ServerName\Instance15, up to 15 named and 1
> default, or 16 namedactually, you can have many more, but Microsoft only
> supporting up to 16 total instances, named or default.
> The problem with clusters is that each participating node looks like a
> stand
> alone server in that each may host all instances; thus, the binaries and
> the
> naming convention above still applies; however, for a cluster, you have to
> create a virtual server resource group for each instance to support the
> Disk
> (which is the critical factor), IP, and Network Name. It is the Network
> Name, which knows nothing of SQL Server instances, that must each be
> unique
> within the cluster installation.
> So, you end up with unique network names because of clustering, which is a
> restriction even before SQL Server is installed, and unique instance names
> because of multiple concurrent SQL Server hosting on any one failover
> node.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> environment.
> such
> that
> for
>