active\passive set up. The production enviornment has 3 instances. Is it
possible that a single instance can fail over to the standby node and leaving
the other 2 behind? We think this is happeing but I thought if the server
fails over to the passive server then it would include all 3 instances (All
or nothing)
Thanks
Nope. Each instance has its own resource dependency list. If a resource
that is unique for a single instance times out, it will trip that instance
only for failover.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"ronc" <ronc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9232DBCF-60C1-4A35-9A96-53594E2BC504@.microsoft.com...
> Our production enviornment consists of 2 production servers in an
> active\passive set up. The production enviornment has 3 instances. Is it
> possible that a single instance can fail over to the standby node and
> leaving
> the other 2 behind? We think this is happeing but I thought if the server
> fails over to the passive server then it would include all 3 instances
> (All
> or nothing)
> Thanks
|||That's why there are Resource Groups. Clearly, if the underlying hardware
has an issue, then all groups will failover, but that is just because they
share a common resource, not resource dependencies.
The cluster group, and typically the MS DTC, are left behind when the SQL
Server group fails over.
Each resource group is a separate virtual host and behaves independently
from the others.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O9cbhWzBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nope. Each instance has its own resource dependency list. If a resource
> that is unique for a single instance times out, it will trip that instance
> only for failover.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "ronc" <ronc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9232DBCF-60C1-4A35-9A96-53594E2BC504@.microsoft.com...
it[vbcol=seagreen]
server
>
|||Thus turning your cluster into active/active :-D
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O9cbhWzBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Nope. Each instance has its own resource dependency list. If a resource
> that is unique for a single instance times out, it will trip that instance
> only for failover.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "ronc" <ronc@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9232DBCF-60C1-4A35-9A96-53594E2BC504@.microsoft.com...
>
|||No, thus leaving your cluster as a multi-instance cluster. There is
absolutely, no such thing as an active/active or active/passive SQL Server
cluster. Such a thing does not exist at all.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedViagra3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:eV5VIU9EGHA.1464@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thus turning your cluster into active/active :-D
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O9cbhWzBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Unless you are still running SQL 7.0.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:ueVAb99EGHA.648@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> No, thus leaving your cluster as a multi-instance cluster. There is
> absolutely, no such thing as an active/active or active/passive SQL Server
> cluster. Such a thing does not exist at all.
> --
> Mike
> Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
> "Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedViagra3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:eV5VIU9EGHA.1464@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Yes...you are correct...but to date I have not heard anyone outside of
academia and Microsoft fora use
multi-instance. When they say Active/Active, we all know what they mean :-)
Sorry to have pushed your terminology button Mike :-)
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:ueVAb99EGHA.648@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> No, thus leaving your cluster as a multi-instance cluster. There is
> absolutely, no such thing as an active/active or active/passive SQL Server
> cluster. Such a thing does not exist at all.
> --
> Mike
> Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
> "Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedViagra3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:eV5VIU9EGHA.1464@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Personally I hate the term, sorry Mike. I like A/A much better. For example,
here at work we have a multi instance cluster. That does not tell you
anything, now if I said it was A/A/P would you guess it's a 3 node cluster
with 2 or more instances?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedViagra3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:e3rstAaFGHA.140@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yes...you are correct...but to date I have not heard anyone outside of
> academia and Microsoft fora use
> multi-instance. When they say Active/Active, we all know what they mean
> :-)
> Sorry to have pushed your terminology button Mike :-)
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> news:ueVAb99EGHA.648@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Despite my earlier jab, I am siding with Mike. Active-Active-P-A-... just
invites misunderstanding. New users expect clustering to be a scale out
technology based on this nomenclature. Explaining that it isn't and why
becomes discouraging. Single- and Multi-instance describes the cluster's
basic functionality, something that no combination of Active and Passive
does.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:%237mHGGaFGHA.1124@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Personally I hate the term, sorry Mike. I like A/A much better. For
> example, here at work we have a multi instance cluster. That does not tell
> you anything, now if I said it was A/A/P would you guess it's a 3 node
> cluster with 2 or more instances?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>
> "Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedViagra3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:e3rstAaFGHA.140@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||I guess it all boils down to what a true DBA/SQL Guru knows/believes (Geoff)
and a computer hacks knows (Me). Since I have only seen you wrong once in
the last few years, I will take the back seat here and let you drive
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ut09M2eFGHA.3036@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Despite my earlier jab, I am siding with Mike. Active-Active-P-A-... just
> invites misunderstanding. New users expect clustering to be a scale out
> technology based on this nomenclature. Explaining that it isn't and why
> becomes discouraging. Single- and Multi-instance describes the cluster's
> basic functionality, something that no combination of Active and Passive
> does.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:%237mHGGaFGHA.1124@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
No comments:
Post a Comment