ACTIVE\ACTIVE Cluster Configuration, Urgent

Hey. I've 2 nodes in this active\active cluster. Both of them have 20gb memory. Right now, both are configured to use 12gb each. Is that the right way to configure it? I was thinking we'll have IO issues if we ever failed over to a server. I've to migrate to SQL 2005 and needed some help regarding using accounts.

Should I use the same account for the cluster service and the SQL Server/Agent service? If not what are the permissions I've to give to the cluster service account in SQL? I've a cluster with 2 nodes. What permissions should the SQL account be given on the box? Should it be a local admin or when installing, I give it the account and let SQL worry about giving permissions to the box?

Thank you.

The SQL Server service accounts should be different than your cluster administrator account. The cluster administrator account must be a member of the local administrator group on each node.

The service accounts for the SQL Server services should be regular user accounts on the machine. The setup process will assign permissions to the appropriate registry keys and directories. You will have to create groups in the domain in order to finish installing the clustered instance. The link below provides the details for this as well as covering a large number of other upgrade issues.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3d5e96d9-0074-46c4-bd4f-c3eb2abf4b66&DisplayLang=en

|||

And how should the cluster Admin account be configured in SQL? What are the right it should be given if I plan to not have Builtin admins any rights in SQL. Is it a good idea to remove Builtin Admins from SQL? Thank you very much

Tej

sql

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
>
>

accessing sql server via IP is very slow

Hello,
we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access with
both name pipes and tcp/ip.
while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip is
very slow
someone could put a light on this issue
ThanksCan you give some information about your network config?
"Tal Bar-Or" <TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4584EDEB-61AA-4439-9A5D-D03CBAE4BD33@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access with
> both name pipes and tcp/ip.
> while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip is
> very slow
> someone could put a light on this issue
> Thanks|||we have standard active directory with dns and wins all connected to switch
with one vlan without any restriction.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Can you give some information about your network config?
>
> "Tal Bar-Or" <TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4584EDEB-61AA-4439-9A5D-D03CBAE4BD33@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access with
> > both name pipes and tcp/ip.
> > while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip is
> > very slow
> > someone could put a light on this issue
> > Thanks
>
>|||Have you talked to your network administrator? This could be how the LAN is
configured (e.g. it could be that IPs are routed differently...)
"Tal Bar-Or" <TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45F5967B-B303-4E44-9F63-8096A9C22006@.microsoft.com...
> we have standard active directory with dns and wins all connected to
> switch
> with one vlan without any restriction.
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> Can you give some information about your network config?
>>
>> "Tal Bar-Or" <TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4584EDEB-61AA-4439-9A5D-D03CBAE4BD33@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access
>> > with
>> > both name pipes and tcp/ip.
>> > while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip
>> > is
>> > very slow
>> > someone could put a light on this issue
>> > Thanks
>>|||Also, is it just SQL traffic? What do ping, tracert, file copy etc. look
like using both connection methods?
And if IP is slow, then why not just use named pipes? I gather that you
want to understand the problem, but personally I would rather spend my time
on software performance issues and leave the hardware stuff to the hardware
folks. :-)|||This is definitely a question for your network admin to address.
You could try using the tracert dos command to see if there is a single
point in the path that is causing the majority of the slowdown.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Tal Bar-Or" <TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4584EDEB-61AA-4439-9A5D-D03CBAE4BD33@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access with
> both name pipes and tcp/ip.
> while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip is
> very slow
> someone could put a light on this issue
> Thanks|||Thanks for the answer
could you please point me to an article how difference made by connecting
via name pipes and tcp/ip
thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Also, is it just SQL traffic? What do ping, tracert, file copy etc. look
> like using both connection methods?
> And if IP is slow, then why not just use named pipes? I gather that you
> want to understand the problem, but personally I would rather spend my time
> on software performance issues and leave the hardware stuff to the hardware
> folks. :-)
>
>|||Just to be clear, the clients in question are not on the same server?
Quoting the Books On Line:
"It is also important to clarify if you are talking about local pipes
or network pipes. If the server application is running locally on the
computer that is running an instance of SQL Server, the local Named
Pipes protocol is an option. Local named pipes runs in kernel mode and
is very fast."
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:59:01 -0700, Tal Bar-Or
<TalBarOr@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>we got a situation with sql 2005 server that configured to be access with
>both name pipes and tcp/ip.
>while accessing the server via name pipes is very fast other method ip is
>very slow
>someone could put a light on this issue
>Thanks|||> could you please point me to an article how difference made by connecting
> via name pipes and tcp/ip
I don't know of one specifically off-hand. Did you try Google?

Accessing Reports via URL

I have configured my report server. I can connect to it via Management
Studio and via http://localhost/reports however when I try to connect via
http://servername/reports I get a Windows style password box. What user is
it expecting? Regards, Chris.Ignore me it seems to be working now
"Fresno Bob" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u7VfBfz7HHA.2476@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have configured my report server. I can connect to it via Management
>Studio and via http://localhost/reports however when I try to connect via
>http://servername/reports I get a Windows style password box. What user is
>it expecting? Regards, Chris.
>

Accessing Reporting Services by other than machine name.

When reporting services is installed the machine name is configured by
default eg: http://MAIN/Reports, however, if I try to access the
reporting services machine by other than the machine name I receive an
error.
I'm trying something along the lines of
http://testing.xxxx.com/reports. Am prompted for the username and
password and can login without any issue, however, I can't display any
of the reports because the URL points to http://MAIN/.... rather
than the fully qualified domain name.
Just wondering what I'm doing wrong.
Thanks in advance,
CNTo further clarify the issue, currently the ReportServerUrl in the
RSWebApplication.config (ReportManager Folder) includes an entry to
allow the ReportServerUrl to be specified.
Original Value <ReportServerUrl>http://MACHINENAME/ReportServer/</ReportServerUrl>
Modified Value <ReportServerUrl>http://www.domainname.com/ReportServer/</ReportServerUrl>
With this change and restarting reporting services everthing works
okay if you login as a basic user/browser (can navigate and view
reports), however, if you then try to login with an administrative
account ... you can't. You continually receive an error message "
There is an error in XML document (1, 1225).
".
If you switch the value in the configuration file back to the machine
name everything is accessible again except the reports can't be
viewed.
Hence my dilema - am I doing something wrong or is this an issue with
the current release of reporting services?
(CN) wrote in message news:<495b624a.0406191428.619fae2a@.posting.google.com>...
> When reporting services is installed the machine name is configured by
> default eg: http://MAIN/Reports, however, if I try to access the
> reporting services machine by other than the machine name I receive an
> error.
> I'm trying something along the lines of
> http://testing.xxxx.com/reports. Am prompted for the username and
> password and can login without any issue, however, I can't display any
> of the reports because the URL points to http://MAIN/.... rather
> than the fully qualified domain name.
> Just wondering what I'm doing wrong.
> Thanks in advance,
> CN|||look at the <ReportServerExternalUrl> tag in the config file
use it like this:
<ReportServerExternalUrl>testing.xxxx.com</ReportServerExternalUrl>
the system will detect if the user access the site from the .com URL or from
the internal (http://main) url and setup the right links etc...
"CN" <charles@.pstgi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:495b624a.0406191428.619fae2a@.posting.google.com...
> When reporting services is installed the machine name is configured by
> default eg: http://MAIN/Reports, however, if I try to access the
> reporting services machine by other than the machine name I receive an
> error.
> I'm trying something along the lines of
> http://testing.xxxx.com/reports. Am prompted for the username and
> password and can login without any issue, however, I can't display any
> of the reports because the URL points to http://MAIN/.... rather
> than the fully qualified domain name.
> Just wondering what I'm doing wrong.
> Thanks in advance,
> CN|||I get the same error. This is one of those "pray to SP1" things, It think.
Tim Heuer
"CN" <charles@.pstgi.com> wrote in message
news:495b624a.0406200659.517908a1@.posting.google.com...
> To further clarify the issue, currently the ReportServerUrl in the
> RSWebApplication.config (ReportManager Folder) includes an entry to
> allow the ReportServerUrl to be specified.
> Original Value
<ReportServerUrl>http://MACHINENAME/ReportServer/</ReportServerUrl>
> Modified Value
<ReportServerUrl>http://www.domainname.com/ReportServer/</ReportServerUrl>
> With this change and restarting reporting services everthing works
> okay if you login as a basic user/browser (can navigate and view
> reports), however, if you then try to login with an administrative
> account ... you can't. You continually receive an error message "
> There is an error in XML document (1, 1225).
> ".
> If you switch the value in the configuration file back to the machine
> name everything is accessible again except the reports can't be
> viewed.
> Hence my dilema - am I doing something wrong or is this an issue with
> the current release of reporting services?
>
> (CN) wrote in message
news:<495b624a.0406191428.619fae2a@.posting.google.com>...
> > When reporting services is installed the machine name is configured by
> > default eg: http://MAIN/Reports, however, if I try to access the
> > reporting services machine by other than the machine name I receive an
> > error.
> >
> > I'm trying something along the lines of
> > http://testing.xxxx.com/reports. Am prompted for the username and
> > password and can login without any issue, however, I can't display any
> > of the reports because the URL points to http://MAIN/.... rather
> > than the fully qualified domain name.
> >
> > Just wondering what I'm doing wrong.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > CN