Active/Active Vs. Active/Passive

Hi,
I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
Active or Active/Passive.
Thanks in advance
Manu
It depends on your needs.
Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
the Cluster.
You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
the second active node as your report server for example...
If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
money to leave the second node in a standby position.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am getting confused as to which cluster configuration is better? Active/
> Active or Active/Passive.
> Thanks in advance
> Manu
|||On 30 Nov, 08:37, Ekrem nsoy <ek...@.btegitim.com> wrote:
> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
> "manu" <m...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ekrem's right. However I hear that MS are moving towards discouraging
Active/Active (Excahnge already only runs Active/Passive?). You may
need to look at an Active/Active/Passive 3 machine setup. Having said
that, I'm running 64bit 2005 Active/Active precisely to maximise a
return on my hardware investment. Seems to work!
|||Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
important role here.
I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration in
terms of binaries and registry information.
Thanks
Manu
"Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:

> It depends on your needs.
> Active \ Active means, there are more than one running SQL Server server in
> the Cluster.
> You could use this to divide your SQL Server's load. This is not a real load
> balancing however you could use your first node for OLTP purposes and use
> the second active node as your report server for example...
> If you have only two nodes in your cluster and one is passive then it means
> you'll not be able to take advantage of your passive node unless your first
> node breaks down. Your passive node is used only in emergency in
> Active\Passive SQL Server Failover Cluster.
> Managers usually want to take advantage of the second node too because as
> you know server hardwares are not cheap stuff so they think it's a waste of
> money to leave the second node in a standby position.
> --
> Ekrem ?nsoy
>
> "manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83FA7240-F0A6-4050-9406-665E6586072A@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I don't know why you do think so, however when you want to set up more than
one active nodes in a Cluster you'll need seperate licences for each active
SQL Server nodes.
When you use Active\Passive, you'll just need one license for the active
node.
So, it'll be more expensive to use more than one active SQL Server node in
your Cluster however you'd take advantage of your second node. It would not
be sleeping smurf all the time.
Ekrem ?nsoy
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote:
|||> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
You need to get past the terminology and focus on the functionality. These
two are totally different configurations. First off as someone eluded to
Active -whatever is no longer considered the proper terminology when
referencing clusters. It is Single Instance cluster or Multi-instance
cluster which is still confusing to a degree. But the bottom line is that a
cluster is for hardware fail over purposes only. If you only have 1 instance
of SQL Server in a cluster env it is a single instance cluster. If you have
more than 1 instance of SQL Server you can choose to place both instances on
1 node and none on the other which is equivalent to the old Active - Passive
just with 2 SQL Instance. If you chose to put 1 SQL instance on each node of
the cluster this would be equivalent to the old Active - Active. There are
no rules that state you must do one over the other. There are always trade
offs with any technology and you need to decide what is best for your
business to meet your needs. One is just as stable as the other since the
registry is always populated on both nodes regardless of the configuration,
otherwise it would not be a cluster. I highly suggest you read all you can
on clusters with SQL Server (google will find tons of info) before you go
any further.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"manu" <manu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:24342CE1-5962-4699-B8F1-F0CA55B47773@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your reply, so that means its the cost factor that plays an
> important role here.
> I thought Active/Passive is more stable than Active/Active configuration
> in
> terms of binaries and registry information.
> Thanks
> Manu
> "Ekrem ?nsoy" wrote: