Thanks shea. The shared disk will not be accessed by more than one node. Each node will have its own shared bay and database. But the data will be federated\partitioned across the databases on both instances horizontally. Using DP Views the application ac
cess the data required. This is my thought and not sure whether practically possible or not. This way we can use the resources of both the nodes (scale out). When a failover happens, a single node will share the load which is obvious in case of Oracle's R
eal Application Cluster also.
Marx.
You can create 2 SQL Instances. Each partitioned table will reside in a database in each SQL Instance. The distributed view will read/write data to the correct SQL Instance. If SQLInstance1 is on Node1 and SQLInstance2 is on Node2 you will achieve a de
gree of load balancing via the distributed views. However, if Node1 fails SQLInstance1 will failover to Node2 and you will now have degraded performance. If you wish to maintain this high availability AND high performance scenario then you need 2 x 2-no
de clusters. Then if any node fails in either cluster you will maintain the same level of performance even though you now have a reduced level of redundancy. Of course this solution costs a whole lot more...
When ever you design a clustered solution you need to ask your clients if they are prepared to take a reduced level of service (in this case performance) when you loose some of your redundancy (due to a hardware or software failure).
|||That will work. Managing the DPV is challenging to say the least, but it is
possible.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
Showing posts with label disk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disk. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
active/passive w/o shared disk array
can you have an active/passive without a shared disk array?
can you have an active/active without a shared disk array?
Where are the actual db files stored?
thanksNo you'll need to setup shared disks|||where are the db file stored? On the sared disk?
Can I set up a regular server as a "shared disk" instead of buying expensive disk arrays such as netapp? Any other options?
thanks|||Yes, db files are stored on shared disk, not local|||I think Microsoft advises against using a NAS device, or a shared network drive for SQL Server files. I think it can technically be done, but the chance of corruption of the database is inordinately high.|||Without a shared disk array, when one server goes down, how does the other server get to the data?
SAN is the perferred, although, we have 2 cluster environments here running with DELL PowerVaults and things have been going well so far.
can you have an active/active without a shared disk array?
Where are the actual db files stored?
thanksNo you'll need to setup shared disks|||where are the db file stored? On the sared disk?
Can I set up a regular server as a "shared disk" instead of buying expensive disk arrays such as netapp? Any other options?
thanks|||Yes, db files are stored on shared disk, not local|||I think Microsoft advises against using a NAS device, or a shared network drive for SQL Server files. I think it can technically be done, but the chance of corruption of the database is inordinately high.|||Without a shared disk array, when one server goes down, how does the other server get to the data?
SAN is the perferred, although, we have 2 cluster environments here running with DELL PowerVaults and things have been going well so far.
Active/Passive Production with Test Instance
I am trying to setup a SQL cluster with the an
active/passive cluster for production. On the passive
node, I have been told to create a separate disk and
install a developers edition of SQL to use as a test
environment. The developers edition will be a named
instance of SQL to help isolate it from production should
a failover occur.
Does anyone else out there have this type of
configuration in their environment? Have you had any
problems or does it work fine? My gut is not real
comfortable with this, even though we can make it work in
a test lab. I would appreciate any other feed back to
make me feel better, or help me build the case to do
otherwise.
Thanks
Dan,
Reading your description, it appears that you want a production clustered SQL Server instance on one node (that you call active) and another test clustered SQL Server instance on second node (that you called
passive). This will work but then it is not really active/passive, it will be active/active configruation. Basically you are planning to install two clustered SQL Server instances on a two node cluster and each instance
running on seperate nodes. There is no issue in doing this except that you will need make sure that at any time the resources on a single node is enough for both the SQL Server instances.
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering is a High Availablity solution. Hence, one would not want to have production and test instances on the same cluster. I would not recommend having prod and test on same cluster
and I have not seen this. I have seen many clusters with two instances of SQL (infact 16 instances are supported) on the same cluster but all the instances are for production and they are configured such that even if
one node fails the other node can run all the instances without any issues.
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||
>--Original Message--
>Dan,
>Reading your description, it appears that you want a
production clustered SQL Server instance on one node
(that you call active) and another test clustered SQL
Server instance on second node (that you called
>passive).
Actually, the test instance of SQL would not be
clustered, but exist solely on the second box. We do not
plan any failover for the test instance.
This will work but then it is not really active/passive,
it will be active/active configruation. Basically you are
planning to install two clustered SQL Server instances on
a two node cluster and each instance
>running on seperate nodes. There is no issue in doing
this except that you will need make sure that at any time
the resources on a single node is enough for both the SQL
Server instances.
>SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering is a High
Availablity solution. Hence, one would not want to have
production and test instances on the same cluster. I
would not recommend having prod and test on same cluster
>and I have not seen this. I have seen many clusters with
two instances of SQL (infact 16 instances are supported)
on the same cluster but all the instances are for
production and they are configured such that even if
>one node fails the other node can run all the instances
without any issues.
>HTH,
>Best Regards,
>Uttam Parui
>Microsoft Corporation
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>Are you secure? For information about the Strategic
Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE
Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
>Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet
access update their Microsoft software to better protect
against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way to do this is to visit the following websites:
>http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>
>.
>
|||Even if the second instance of SQL Server is standalone and not clustered, I would not recommend installing it on a production cluster. The passive node is like
Sometimes there is the notion especially in a single-instance SQL Serve cluster (active/passove) that the unused node (passive node) is being wasted. However, the passive node serve as an insurance policy in
the event of a failure. If you start utilizing the wasted node for something else, what will happen in a failover? Will SQL Server have enough resources to allocate to it?
I will give an example. Few yrs ago, one of my customers who had a SQL Server 7.0 active/passive production cluster thought that the passive node was being wasted and they installed a TEST SQL Server 2000
standalone instance on the passive node. What they didn't realize is that MDAC 2.6 got installed with SQL 2K and MDAC 2.6 can break SQL 7.0 cluster. So, unknowingly they affected their Highly Available
solution.Thats the reason, you don't want to do any test/dev stuff on your prod cluster. Ideally, you should have an identical dev/test cluster where you do all your development and testing and after getting successful
results, do that on the prodcution cluster.
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
active/passive cluster for production. On the passive
node, I have been told to create a separate disk and
install a developers edition of SQL to use as a test
environment. The developers edition will be a named
instance of SQL to help isolate it from production should
a failover occur.
Does anyone else out there have this type of
configuration in their environment? Have you had any
problems or does it work fine? My gut is not real
comfortable with this, even though we can make it work in
a test lab. I would appreciate any other feed back to
make me feel better, or help me build the case to do
otherwise.
Thanks
Dan,
Reading your description, it appears that you want a production clustered SQL Server instance on one node (that you call active) and another test clustered SQL Server instance on second node (that you called
passive). This will work but then it is not really active/passive, it will be active/active configruation. Basically you are planning to install two clustered SQL Server instances on a two node cluster and each instance
running on seperate nodes. There is no issue in doing this except that you will need make sure that at any time the resources on a single node is enough for both the SQL Server instances.
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering is a High Availablity solution. Hence, one would not want to have production and test instances on the same cluster. I would not recommend having prod and test on same cluster
and I have not seen this. I have seen many clusters with two instances of SQL (infact 16 instances are supported) on the same cluster but all the instances are for production and they are configured such that even if
one node fails the other node can run all the instances without any issues.
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||
>--Original Message--
>Dan,
>Reading your description, it appears that you want a
production clustered SQL Server instance on one node
(that you call active) and another test clustered SQL
Server instance on second node (that you called
>passive).
Actually, the test instance of SQL would not be
clustered, but exist solely on the second box. We do not
plan any failover for the test instance.
This will work but then it is not really active/passive,
it will be active/active configruation. Basically you are
planning to install two clustered SQL Server instances on
a two node cluster and each instance
>running on seperate nodes. There is no issue in doing
this except that you will need make sure that at any time
the resources on a single node is enough for both the SQL
Server instances.
>SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering is a High
Availablity solution. Hence, one would not want to have
production and test instances on the same cluster. I
would not recommend having prod and test on same cluster
>and I have not seen this. I have seen many clusters with
two instances of SQL (infact 16 instances are supported)
on the same cluster but all the instances are for
production and they are configured such that even if
>one node fails the other node can run all the instances
without any issues.
>HTH,
>Best Regards,
>Uttam Parui
>Microsoft Corporation
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>Are you secure? For information about the Strategic
Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE
Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
>Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet
access update their Microsoft software to better protect
against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way to do this is to visit the following websites:
>http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>
>.
>
|||Even if the second instance of SQL Server is standalone and not clustered, I would not recommend installing it on a production cluster. The passive node is like
Sometimes there is the notion especially in a single-instance SQL Serve cluster (active/passove) that the unused node (passive node) is being wasted. However, the passive node serve as an insurance policy in
the event of a failure. If you start utilizing the wasted node for something else, what will happen in a failover? Will SQL Server have enough resources to allocate to it?
I will give an example. Few yrs ago, one of my customers who had a SQL Server 7.0 active/passive production cluster thought that the passive node was being wasted and they installed a TEST SQL Server 2000
standalone instance on the passive node. What they didn't realize is that MDAC 2.6 got installed with SQL 2K and MDAC 2.6 can break SQL 7.0 cluster. So, unknowingly they affected their Highly Available
solution.Thats the reason, you don't want to do any test/dev stuff on your prod cluster. Ideally, you should have an identical dev/test cluster where you do all your development and testing and after getting successful
results, do that on the prodcution cluster.
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Active/Passive Failover or Database Mirror without a Shared disk?
This is not my expertise, so would appreciate some help.
Is it possible to create an active/passive failover setup or database
mirroring without a shared disk? Client has two sql servers that they
wanted to upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and then use the second box for an
active/passive configuration. They do not have a shared disk which I am
being told is necessary for this.
Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise on this and am reaching out to
the gurus here.
Also if any of the SQL experts in this group want some consulting work in
NYC for this job, please contact me off the list.
Lawrence Abrams
MVP - Windows Security
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com
Thank you very much for the info. Starting to make a bit more sense? I
assume for the mirror and the witness they would need to be fully licensed?
Also does the witness need to be as powerful as the actual DB servers?
If you know of any SQL MVPs in the NY area, please have them contact me if
they are interested in possibly doing consulting for this setup.
-L
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efiHUMteHHA.5052@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> With no shared storage you rule out clustering but Database Mirroring will
> be fine.A couple of whitepapers to help get your head around DB mirroring
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirror.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/mirroringevents.mspx
>
|||The witness needs a license, but the mirror does not require a SQL license,
provided it is used for failover only. The witness can be a workstation
grade system since all it is doing is observing.
NOTE: Always verify licensing for your configuration with your Microsoft
rep.
While I am not based on the NY area, the company I work for does have a NY
office and would be happy to quote on this project. Email me directly and I
will put you in touch with one of our Business Directors. My posting
address is a valid email address.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Lawrence Abrams" <grinler-REMOVETHIS@.bleepingcomputer.com> wrote in message
news:%23l0LVXteHHA.4604@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thank you very much for the info. Starting to make a bit more sense? I
> assume for the mirror and the witness they would need to be fully
> licensed? Also does the witness need to be as powerful as the actual DB
> servers?
> If you know of any SQL MVPs in the NY area, please have them contact me if
> they are interested in possibly doing consulting for this setup.
> -L
>
> "Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:efiHUMteHHA.5052@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Is it possible to create an active/passive failover setup or database
mirroring without a shared disk? Client has two sql servers that they
wanted to upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 and then use the second box for an
active/passive configuration. They do not have a shared disk which I am
being told is necessary for this.
Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise on this and am reaching out to
the gurus here.
Also if any of the SQL experts in this group want some consulting work in
NYC for this job, please contact me off the list.
Lawrence Abrams
MVP - Windows Security
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com
Thank you very much for the info. Starting to make a bit more sense? I
assume for the mirror and the witness they would need to be fully licensed?
Also does the witness need to be as powerful as the actual DB servers?
If you know of any SQL MVPs in the NY area, please have them contact me if
they are interested in possibly doing consulting for this setup.
-L
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efiHUMteHHA.5052@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> With no shared storage you rule out clustering but Database Mirroring will
> be fine.A couple of whitepapers to help get your head around DB mirroring
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirror.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/mirroringevents.mspx
>
|||The witness needs a license, but the mirror does not require a SQL license,
provided it is used for failover only. The witness can be a workstation
grade system since all it is doing is observing.
NOTE: Always verify licensing for your configuration with your Microsoft
rep.
While I am not based on the NY area, the company I work for does have a NY
office and would be happy to quote on this project. Email me directly and I
will put you in touch with one of our Business Directors. My posting
address is a valid email address.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Lawrence Abrams" <grinler-REMOVETHIS@.bleepingcomputer.com> wrote in message
news:%23l0LVXteHHA.4604@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thank you very much for the info. Starting to make a bit more sense? I
> assume for the mirror and the witness they would need to be fully
> licensed? Also does the witness need to be as powerful as the actual DB
> servers?
> If you know of any SQL MVPs in the NY area, please have them contact me if
> they are interested in possibly doing consulting for this setup.
> -L
>
> "Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:efiHUMteHHA.5052@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Active/Passive > Active/Active
You mean going from a single instance cluster to a
multiple instance cluster (this is the correct
terminology).
It depends on your disk setup. Remember that each SQL
virtual server needs its own set of dedicated disks, not
to mention a dedicated disk for the quorum, and if you're
using W2K3, one for MS DTC.
Also, you need to ensure you have enough memory and
processor to handle the additional load.
I suggest you look at any of the numerous sources out
there, including the SQL 2K HA book by MS Press, or the
failover clustering whitepaper on Microsoft.com
Hi Allan,
Thanks for replying. I should make myself clearer.
Right now I have 2 Dell 6450's attached to EMC Clarion.
They are setup as Active/Passive cluster. The company bought 2
new Dell 6650's and I will be swapping out the servers one at a time to upgrade the H/W.
One of the developers wants to go Active/Active and the only way I think I can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with Active/Passive since we couldn
't afford the downtime.
"Allan Hirt" wrote:
> You mean going from a single instance cluster to a
> multiple instance cluster (this is the correct
> terminology).
> It depends on your disk setup. Remember that each SQL
> virtual server needs its own set of dedicated disks, not
> to mention a dedicated disk for the quorum, and if you're
> using W2K3, one for MS DTC.
> Also, you need to ensure you have enough memory and
> processor to handle the additional load.
> I suggest you look at any of the numerous sources out
> there, including the SQL 2K HA book by MS Press, or the
> failover clustering whitepaper on Microsoft.com
>
>
|||I think your developer misunderstands the whole 'active-passive...'
nomenclature. Do you want one or two virtual servers on your cluster? If
one, then it is 'active-passive' or 'single-instance'. Two or more means
'active-active' or 'multi-instance'. If you want to transition your
existing single instance to new hosts, that is a different issue.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"plane123" <plane123@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:305B32A8-6A53-4337-A2AE-48F60DE459CB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Allan,
> Thanks for replying. I should make myself clearer.
> Right now I have 2 Dell 6450's attached to EMC Clarion.
> They are setup as Active/Passive cluster. The company bought 2
> new Dell 6650's and I will be swapping out the servers one at a time to
upgrade the H/W.
> One of the developers wants to go Active/Active and the only way I think I
can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the
cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with
Active/Passive since we couldn't afford the downtime.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Allan Hirt" wrote:
|||Thanks for your input.
I think in order for me to create an active/active setup, I need to reconfigure the shared disk, which I can't do, I'd disrupt all the other attached servers.
Thanks
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I think your developer misunderstands the whole 'active-passive...'
> nomenclature. Do you want one or two virtual servers on your cluster? If
> one, then it is 'active-passive' or 'single-instance'. Two or more means
> 'active-active' or 'multi-instance'. If you want to transition your
> existing single instance to new hosts, that is a different issue.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "plane123" <plane123@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:305B32A8-6A53-4337-A2AE-48F60DE459CB@.microsoft.com...
> upgrade the H/W.
> can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the
> cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with
> Active/Passive since we couldn't afford the downtime.
>
>
multiple instance cluster (this is the correct
terminology).
It depends on your disk setup. Remember that each SQL
virtual server needs its own set of dedicated disks, not
to mention a dedicated disk for the quorum, and if you're
using W2K3, one for MS DTC.
Also, you need to ensure you have enough memory and
processor to handle the additional load.
I suggest you look at any of the numerous sources out
there, including the SQL 2K HA book by MS Press, or the
failover clustering whitepaper on Microsoft.com
Hi Allan,
Thanks for replying. I should make myself clearer.
Right now I have 2 Dell 6450's attached to EMC Clarion.
They are setup as Active/Passive cluster. The company bought 2
new Dell 6650's and I will be swapping out the servers one at a time to upgrade the H/W.
One of the developers wants to go Active/Active and the only way I think I can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with Active/Passive since we couldn
't afford the downtime.
"Allan Hirt" wrote:
> You mean going from a single instance cluster to a
> multiple instance cluster (this is the correct
> terminology).
> It depends on your disk setup. Remember that each SQL
> virtual server needs its own set of dedicated disks, not
> to mention a dedicated disk for the quorum, and if you're
> using W2K3, one for MS DTC.
> Also, you need to ensure you have enough memory and
> processor to handle the additional load.
> I suggest you look at any of the numerous sources out
> there, including the SQL 2K HA book by MS Press, or the
> failover clustering whitepaper on Microsoft.com
>
>
|||I think your developer misunderstands the whole 'active-passive...'
nomenclature. Do you want one or two virtual servers on your cluster? If
one, then it is 'active-passive' or 'single-instance'. Two or more means
'active-active' or 'multi-instance'. If you want to transition your
existing single instance to new hosts, that is a different issue.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"plane123" <plane123@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:305B32A8-6A53-4337-A2AE-48F60DE459CB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Allan,
> Thanks for replying. I should make myself clearer.
> Right now I have 2 Dell 6450's attached to EMC Clarion.
> They are setup as Active/Passive cluster. The company bought 2
> new Dell 6650's and I will be swapping out the servers one at a time to
upgrade the H/W.
> One of the developers wants to go Active/Active and the only way I think I
can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the
cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with
Active/Passive since we couldn't afford the downtime.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Allan Hirt" wrote:
|||Thanks for your input.
I think in order for me to create an active/active setup, I need to reconfigure the shared disk, which I can't do, I'd disrupt all the other attached servers.
Thanks
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I think your developer misunderstands the whole 'active-passive...'
> nomenclature. Do you want one or two virtual servers on your cluster? If
> one, then it is 'active-passive' or 'single-instance'. Two or more means
> 'active-active' or 'multi-instance'. If you want to transition your
> existing single instance to new hosts, that is a different issue.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "plane123" <plane123@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:305B32A8-6A53-4337-A2AE-48F60DE459CB@.microsoft.com...
> upgrade the H/W.
> can do this is uninstall SQL and uninstall the cluster, then reinstall the
> cluster and and reinstall SQL. If that's the case I think we'll stay with
> Active/Passive since we couldn't afford the downtime.
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)