Does this means.. if we have 2 instances on active/passive cluster... we can
make it active/active by just moving one instance on the other node. Thats
it.. correct? Thanks in advance for your reply.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Tom is trying very hard to answer your question.
> You have a Single-instance, two-node cluster. The 'Active/Passive'
> nomenclature went away with SQL 7.0 when clustering setup and functionality
> changed drastically. You can add more instances to your cluster. Each
> Instance will act as an independent SQL Server. You cannot have two host
> nodes "share" a set of databases and scale out that way.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Mike" <Mike@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B69A7772-DC00-40B9-AFEA-7354393ADEAA@.microsoft.com...
>
"DBA05" <DBA05@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43794BBE-EDA5-4F67-AAD4-8BFF835071C1@.microsoft.com...
> Does this means.. if we have 2 instances on active/passive cluster... we
> can
> make it active/active by just moving one instance on the other node. Thats
> it.. correct? Thanks in advance for your reply.
Yes.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
|||Is it possible to change name of SQL Server Instance on Cluster? If yes, what
is the appropriate way to do it?
Thanks.
"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:
> "DBA05" <DBA05@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43794BBE-EDA5-4F67-AAD4-8BFF835071C1@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
> The next ClusterHelp classes are:
> Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
> Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
>
|||You cannot rename an instance if it is clustered:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/260414
(See question 5.) You would have to reinstall.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"DBA05" <DBA05@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57FBF475-5224-4FA7-A217-DC94147C63D5@.microsoft.com...
Is it possible to change name of SQL Server Instance on Cluster? If yes,
what
is the appropriate way to do it?
Thanks.
"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:
> "DBA05" <DBA05@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43794BBE-EDA5-4F67-AAD4-8BFF835071C1@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
> The next ClusterHelp classes are:
> Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
> Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
>
Showing posts with label instances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label instances. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
active/passive with multiple instances
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
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...
>
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...
>
Active/Passive Multi-Intance
Hi,
How many instances of SQL server I need to install in 2 - node server
cluster for Active/Active and for Active/Passive mode 'on each node' ?
Pankaj
SQL does not use the term Active or Passive. It's all about instances. With
Server 2003, you can run 16 instances within the cluster. Any node will be
albe to support as many as that node can hold
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:3360D54D-0676-4AD0-84DE-26D61D6761D9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> How many instances of SQL server I need to install in 2 - node server
> cluster for Active/Active and for Active/Passive mode 'on each node' ?
> Pankaj
|||Pankaj,
Rod is correct.
I think you might want to review the following whitepaper:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
and the following topics in BOL;
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clusters
Failover Clustering FAQ
Failover Clustering
Hope that helps!
Thanks
Donna Lambert
Microsoft SQL Server Product Support
How many instances of SQL server I need to install in 2 - node server
cluster for Active/Active and for Active/Passive mode 'on each node' ?
Pankaj
SQL does not use the term Active or Passive. It's all about instances. With
Server 2003, you can run 16 instances within the cluster. Any node will be
albe to support as many as that node can hold
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Pankaj" <pankajchitriv@.rediffmail.com(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:3360D54D-0676-4AD0-84DE-26D61D6761D9@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> How many instances of SQL server I need to install in 2 - node server
> cluster for Active/Active and for Active/Passive mode 'on each node' ?
> Pankaj
|||Pankaj,
Rod is correct.
I think you might want to review the following whitepaper:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
and the following topics in BOL;
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clusters
Failover Clustering FAQ
Failover Clustering
Hope that helps!
Thanks
Donna Lambert
Microsoft SQL Server Product Support
Active/Passes Instances on a Single Virtual Server
Hi all,
Does anyone know if it possible to have active/passive
instances of SQL on a single virtual server? I'm
thinking not but if anyone has any info it would be much
appreciated.
Cheers,
Dave.
Are you asking if you can have an Active / Passive (now referred to as
Multi-Instance) cluster on a single physical server? If so since Clustering
is a hardware fail over solution so it would be mostly pointless. With that
said I have seen people use VMWare to simulate multiple servers for testing
purposes but there is no reason you would want to do this in a production
scenario.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6dab01c48388$6c39ba50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Does anyone know if it possible to have active/passive
> instances of SQL on a single virtual server? I'm
> thinking not but if anyone has any info it would be much
> appreciated.
> Cheers,
> Dave.
|||I posted more out of curiosity to be honest. A colleague
asked if he could have a more than one SQL instance on a
single virtual server (i.e not create a new SQL instance
on a new virtual server on the same cluster). I'm not
talking at the hardware level no, at a SQL level. My
colleague states that you could then run the 2 SQL
instances in an active/passive mode. This would be in a
testing (dev) environment yes - purely theory work at the
minute.
>--Original Message--
>Are you asking if you can have an Active / Passive (now
referred to as
>Multi-Instance) cluster on a single physical server? If
so since Clustering
>is a hardware fail over solution so it would be mostly
pointless. With that
>said I have seen people use VMWare to simulate multiple
servers for testing
>purposes but there is no reason you would want to do
this in a production
>scenario.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:6dab01c48388$6c39ba50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
much
>
>.
>
|||Dave,
You can install SQL Server on a single-node cluster. However, each clustered
instance of SQL Server on that one machine must be installed with a new
virtual server name and IP.
Unless there's some subtlety I'm missing, I believe your colleague is wrong.
On a single node cluster, there is no other node of the cluster to fail over
to. In other words, the end result is Active, period, and no passive
whatsoever, because there's no second node. Or a better way to put it,
you're suggesting multi-instance SQL Server virtual servers on a single
node.
Also, as Andrew points out, there's no failover on a single-node cluster,
and so single-node clusters are normally meant only for testing and
learning.
Hope this helps,
Ron
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6e9901c48398$6ac157e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I posted more out of curiosity to be honest. A colleague
> asked if he could have a more than one SQL instance on a
> single virtual server (i.e not create a new SQL instance
> on a new virtual server on the same cluster). I'm not
> talking at the hardware level no, at a SQL level. My
> colleague states that you could then run the 2 SQL
> instances in an active/passive mode. This would be in a
> testing (dev) environment yes - purely theory work at the
> minute.
> referred to as
> so since Clustering
> pointless. With that
> servers for testing
> this in a production
> message
> much
|||Ron,
Thanks for this. I am Dave's colleague who originally
posed the question. This was derived from the principle
that if clustering fails over pre-defined (cluster-aware)
resources why not failover between resource defined on one
node only. Since Dave posted this I have acrried out some
more investigations and beleive the SQL setup wizard is
limiting the installation to select resources on diffrent
nodes. If indeed it cannot be done it would be nice to
know if this is a limitation of MSCS or SQL Setup.
NB Although there is a BOL entry headed 'How to install a
one-node failover cluster' it just install a single
instance that doens't failover.
Many thanks,
Tim
>--Original Message--
>Dave,
>You can install SQL Server on a single-node cluster.
However, each clustered
>instance of SQL Server on that one machine must be
installed with a new
>virtual server name and IP.
>Unless there's some subtlety I'm missing, I believe your
colleague is wrong.
>On a single node cluster, there is no other node of the
cluster to fail over
>to. In other words, the end result is Active, period, and
no passive
>whatsoever, because there's no second node. Or a better
way to put it,
>you're suggesting multi-instance SQL Server virtual
servers on a single
>node.
>Also, as Andrew points out, there's no failover on a
single-node cluster,
>and so single-node clusters are normally meant only for
testing and
>learning.
>Hope this helps,
>Ron
>--
>Ron Talmage
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:6e9901c48398$6ac157e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
colleague[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
If[vbcol=seagreen]
active/passive
>
>.
>
|||Tim,
I do not properly understand your statement. Can you please elaborate?
You wrote " SQL setup wizard is limiting the installation to select resources on diffrent nodes. If indeed it cannot be done it would be nice to know if this is a limitation of MSCS or SQL Setup."
Please give more detail. What type of resources you are talking about. AFAIK, in the SQL setup wizard the only resource that you select is the the shared disk resources. Yeah, if the disk resource you want to use is
being owned by another node then the setup cannot use it. This is not a limitation, its by design. Meaning Windows cluster uses the "shared nothing" topology where in only one node can own the disk.
You wrote "NB Although there is a BOL entry headed 'How to install a one-node failover cluster' it just install a single instance that doens't failover."
Thats true, you cannot failover because it is a single node cluster. Failover is between nodes and not on the same node.
BTW, if you have more than one shared disk on a single node cluster then you can have multiple virtual SQL Server 2000 (supported upto 16) -- each will require a seperate shared disk.
Additional Information:
====================
I highly recommend you to review the first two links to get an idea of what MSCS and SQL Failover Cluster is, what it can do and what it cannot do.
Windows Clustering: An Overview of Microsoft Clustering Technologies
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=325423
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Introduction to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb051001.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server: Things You Should Know
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb032602.asp
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
Does anyone know if it possible to have active/passive
instances of SQL on a single virtual server? I'm
thinking not but if anyone has any info it would be much
appreciated.
Cheers,
Dave.
Are you asking if you can have an Active / Passive (now referred to as
Multi-Instance) cluster on a single physical server? If so since Clustering
is a hardware fail over solution so it would be mostly pointless. With that
said I have seen people use VMWare to simulate multiple servers for testing
purposes but there is no reason you would want to do this in a production
scenario.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6dab01c48388$6c39ba50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Does anyone know if it possible to have active/passive
> instances of SQL on a single virtual server? I'm
> thinking not but if anyone has any info it would be much
> appreciated.
> Cheers,
> Dave.
|||I posted more out of curiosity to be honest. A colleague
asked if he could have a more than one SQL instance on a
single virtual server (i.e not create a new SQL instance
on a new virtual server on the same cluster). I'm not
talking at the hardware level no, at a SQL level. My
colleague states that you could then run the 2 SQL
instances in an active/passive mode. This would be in a
testing (dev) environment yes - purely theory work at the
minute.
>--Original Message--
>Are you asking if you can have an Active / Passive (now
referred to as
>Multi-Instance) cluster on a single physical server? If
so since Clustering
>is a hardware fail over solution so it would be mostly
pointless. With that
>said I have seen people use VMWare to simulate multiple
servers for testing
>purposes but there is no reason you would want to do
this in a production
>scenario.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:6dab01c48388$6c39ba50$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
much
>
>.
>
|||Dave,
You can install SQL Server on a single-node cluster. However, each clustered
instance of SQL Server on that one machine must be installed with a new
virtual server name and IP.
Unless there's some subtlety I'm missing, I believe your colleague is wrong.
On a single node cluster, there is no other node of the cluster to fail over
to. In other words, the end result is Active, period, and no passive
whatsoever, because there's no second node. Or a better way to put it,
you're suggesting multi-instance SQL Server virtual servers on a single
node.
Also, as Andrew points out, there's no failover on a single-node cluster,
and so single-node clusters are normally meant only for testing and
learning.
Hope this helps,
Ron
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6e9901c48398$6ac157e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I posted more out of curiosity to be honest. A colleague
> asked if he could have a more than one SQL instance on a
> single virtual server (i.e not create a new SQL instance
> on a new virtual server on the same cluster). I'm not
> talking at the hardware level no, at a SQL level. My
> colleague states that you could then run the 2 SQL
> instances in an active/passive mode. This would be in a
> testing (dev) environment yes - purely theory work at the
> minute.
> referred to as
> so since Clustering
> pointless. With that
> servers for testing
> this in a production
> message
> much
|||Ron,
Thanks for this. I am Dave's colleague who originally
posed the question. This was derived from the principle
that if clustering fails over pre-defined (cluster-aware)
resources why not failover between resource defined on one
node only. Since Dave posted this I have acrried out some
more investigations and beleive the SQL setup wizard is
limiting the installation to select resources on diffrent
nodes. If indeed it cannot be done it would be nice to
know if this is a limitation of MSCS or SQL Setup.
NB Although there is a BOL entry headed 'How to install a
one-node failover cluster' it just install a single
instance that doens't failover.
Many thanks,
Tim
>--Original Message--
>Dave,
>You can install SQL Server on a single-node cluster.
However, each clustered
>instance of SQL Server on that one machine must be
installed with a new
>virtual server name and IP.
>Unless there's some subtlety I'm missing, I believe your
colleague is wrong.
>On a single node cluster, there is no other node of the
cluster to fail over
>to. In other words, the end result is Active, period, and
no passive
>whatsoever, because there's no second node. Or a better
way to put it,
>you're suggesting multi-instance SQL Server virtual
servers on a single
>node.
>Also, as Andrew points out, there's no failover on a
single-node cluster,
>and so single-node clusters are normally meant only for
testing and
>learning.
>Hope this helps,
>Ron
>--
>Ron Talmage
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"Dave N" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:6e9901c48398$6ac157e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
colleague[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
If[vbcol=seagreen]
active/passive
>
>.
>
|||Tim,
I do not properly understand your statement. Can you please elaborate?
You wrote " SQL setup wizard is limiting the installation to select resources on diffrent nodes. If indeed it cannot be done it would be nice to know if this is a limitation of MSCS or SQL Setup."
Please give more detail. What type of resources you are talking about. AFAIK, in the SQL setup wizard the only resource that you select is the the shared disk resources. Yeah, if the disk resource you want to use is
being owned by another node then the setup cannot use it. This is not a limitation, its by design. Meaning Windows cluster uses the "shared nothing" topology where in only one node can own the disk.
You wrote "NB Although there is a BOL entry headed 'How to install a one-node failover cluster' it just install a single instance that doens't failover."
Thats true, you cannot failover because it is a single node cluster. Failover is between nodes and not on the same node.
BTW, if you have more than one shared disk on a single node cluster then you can have multiple virtual SQL Server 2000 (supported upto 16) -- each will require a seperate shared disk.
Additional Information:
====================
I highly recommend you to review the first two links to get an idea of what MSCS and SQL Failover Cluster is, what it can do and what it cannot do.
Windows Clustering: An Overview of Microsoft Clustering Technologies
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=325423
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Introduction to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb051001.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server: Things You Should Know
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb032602.asp
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/Active to 2x Active/Passive?
I have a 2-node active/active cluster (SQL2KSP4 on Win2003sp1)
supporting 3 instances (2 on one node, 1 on the other). I've received
funding to upgrade the instances by adding new host nodes with
better/faster hardware (Yay!).
The end-result should be the 3 instances running active on the two new
hosts (2 on one, 1 on the other, just like before), with each new host
failing to an old host. Due to SQL licensing, I know I can't run active
on more than 2 hosts; the third instance has very little load/activity,
so I'm not concerned there.
The questions are many:
1) can I accomplish this while keeping everything within the one windows
cluster, or must I break it into two distinct clusters?
2) If I have to break it into two clusters, can I rename the existing
cluster so that the old and new clusters (and their nodes) can fit a
naming convention?
2a) Is possible to evict a node from a cluster, then bring it up as a
different cluster (1-node) without re-installing SQL2K for each instance?
3) Is there any way to pre-install SQL2K on the cluster node that's
being added to eliminate downtime?
Any pointers or tips would be greatly appreciated!
If I understand you correctly, you can accomplish it with a four-node cluster.
Linchi
"Jim Millard" wrote:
> I have a 2-node active/active cluster (SQL2KSP4 on Win2003sp1)
> supporting 3 instances (2 on one node, 1 on the other). I've received
> funding to upgrade the instances by adding new host nodes with
> better/faster hardware (Yay!).
> The end-result should be the 3 instances running active on the two new
> hosts (2 on one, 1 on the other, just like before), with each new host
> failing to an old host. Due to SQL licensing, I know I can't run active
> on more than 2 hosts; the third instance has very little load/activity,
> so I'm not concerned there.
> The questions are many:
> 1) can I accomplish this while keeping everything within the one windows
> cluster, or must I break it into two distinct clusters?
> 2) If I have to break it into two clusters, can I rename the existing
> cluster so that the old and new clusters (and their nodes) can fit a
> naming convention?
> 2a) Is possible to evict a node from a cluster, then bring it up as a
> different cluster (1-node) without re-installing SQL2K for each instance?
> 3) Is there any way to pre-install SQL2K on the cluster node that's
> being added to eliminate downtime?
> Any pointers or tips would be greatly appreciated!
>
sql
supporting 3 instances (2 on one node, 1 on the other). I've received
funding to upgrade the instances by adding new host nodes with
better/faster hardware (Yay!).
The end-result should be the 3 instances running active on the two new
hosts (2 on one, 1 on the other, just like before), with each new host
failing to an old host. Due to SQL licensing, I know I can't run active
on more than 2 hosts; the third instance has very little load/activity,
so I'm not concerned there.
The questions are many:
1) can I accomplish this while keeping everything within the one windows
cluster, or must I break it into two distinct clusters?
2) If I have to break it into two clusters, can I rename the existing
cluster so that the old and new clusters (and their nodes) can fit a
naming convention?
2a) Is possible to evict a node from a cluster, then bring it up as a
different cluster (1-node) without re-installing SQL2K for each instance?
3) Is there any way to pre-install SQL2K on the cluster node that's
being added to eliminate downtime?
Any pointers or tips would be greatly appreciated!
If I understand you correctly, you can accomplish it with a four-node cluster.
Linchi
"Jim Millard" wrote:
> I have a 2-node active/active cluster (SQL2KSP4 on Win2003sp1)
> supporting 3 instances (2 on one node, 1 on the other). I've received
> funding to upgrade the instances by adding new host nodes with
> better/faster hardware (Yay!).
> The end-result should be the 3 instances running active on the two new
> hosts (2 on one, 1 on the other, just like before), with each new host
> failing to an old host. Due to SQL licensing, I know I can't run active
> on more than 2 hosts; the third instance has very little load/activity,
> so I'm not concerned there.
> The questions are many:
> 1) can I accomplish this while keeping everything within the one windows
> cluster, or must I break it into two distinct clusters?
> 2) If I have to break it into two clusters, can I rename the existing
> cluster so that the old and new clusters (and their nodes) can fit a
> naming convention?
> 2a) Is possible to evict a node from a cluster, then bring it up as a
> different cluster (1-node) without re-installing SQL2K for each instance?
> 3) Is there any way to pre-install SQL2K on the cluster node that's
> being added to eliminate downtime?
> Any pointers or tips would be greatly appreciated!
>
sql
Active/Active SQL Clustering Question.
Hello to everyone,
Because im little confused with the number of instances in an
active/active sql cluster scheme ,can anyone please explain me the right
procedure?
For example in a cluster with 2 nodes of Advanced Server i have the below
:
node 1 : SrvClus1\SQLInstance1
node 2 : SrvClus2\SQLInstance2
2 virtual servers with one sql instance per v.server
My question is , in a 2 node cluster cheme, can i setup actually 16 SQL
instances ? only in 2 nodes,i need more cluster nodes?
16 sql instances = 16 virtual servers=16 seperate partitions on storage
for db's data/logs?
Regards
Morgan.
16 is the number alright, does not matter how many servers you have. If you
have the hardware you can load them up!
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"Morgan" <Morgan@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9j30dpSGHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello to everyone,
>
> Because im little confused with the number of instances in an
> active/active sql cluster scheme ,can anyone please explain me the right
> procedure?
> For example in a cluster with 2 nodes of Advanced Server i have the
> below :
> node 1 : SrvClus1\SQLInstance1
> node 2 : SrvClus2\SQLInstance2
> 2 virtual servers with one sql instance per v.server
> My question is , in a 2 node cluster cheme, can i setup actually 16 SQL
> instances ? only in 2 nodes,i need more cluster nodes?
> 16 sql instances = 16 virtual servers=16 seperate partitions on storage
> for db's data/logs?
> Regards
> Morgan.
>
>
>
sql
Because im little confused with the number of instances in an
active/active sql cluster scheme ,can anyone please explain me the right
procedure?
For example in a cluster with 2 nodes of Advanced Server i have the below
:
node 1 : SrvClus1\SQLInstance1
node 2 : SrvClus2\SQLInstance2
2 virtual servers with one sql instance per v.server
My question is , in a 2 node cluster cheme, can i setup actually 16 SQL
instances ? only in 2 nodes,i need more cluster nodes?
16 sql instances = 16 virtual servers=16 seperate partitions on storage
for db's data/logs?
Regards
Morgan.
16 is the number alright, does not matter how many servers you have. If you
have the hardware you can load them up!
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"Morgan" <Morgan@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9j30dpSGHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello to everyone,
>
> Because im little confused with the number of instances in an
> active/active sql cluster scheme ,can anyone please explain me the right
> procedure?
> For example in a cluster with 2 nodes of Advanced Server i have the
> below :
> node 1 : SrvClus1\SQLInstance1
> node 2 : SrvClus2\SQLInstance2
> 2 virtual servers with one sql instance per v.server
> My question is , in a 2 node cluster cheme, can i setup actually 16 SQL
> instances ? only in 2 nodes,i need more cluster nodes?
> 16 sql instances = 16 virtual servers=16 seperate partitions on storage
> for db's data/logs?
> Regards
> Morgan.
>
>
>
sql
Active/Active SQL Cluster
I have two new SQL 2000 instances on separate Win2K3 servers. Is there a way within W2K3 to set them up as an active/active cluster. And do I need to set it up just one one server(insert cd and it will recognize the other server to connect.
We cannot take standalone Win2K3 servers and form a cluster. We need to have a Certfied Cluster Solution listed in Microsoft Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).
A certified cluster does not consist simply of parts that individually reside on the Microsoft Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).
For example, suppose Server model S, HBA model H, storage frame F, and fibre switch W are all certified with Microsoft. This does not mean that a cluster built with S+H+F+W is supported - and customers
requiring support should not simply build a solution with these components.
Non-certified cluster solutions are not guaranteed to operate correctly. For example, the shared disks may be visible to multiple nodes and this can lead to corruption of application data or instability where the
connection to the disks is not reliable. You can waste a lot of time by attempting to troubleshoot perceived server cluster issues that are being caused by the cluster hardware that you are using.
How to locate qualified cluster solutions for Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=828262
NOTE: If the cluster solution is not listed on the HCL or WSC in the Cluster category, the cluster solution is considered UNSUPPORTED. However, Microsoft PSS will offer troubleshooting tips if the customer
requests them. PSS does NOT guarantee that a resolution will be found for non-HCL or non-WSC Clusters. If no resolution is found, the incident is not refunded.
Q309395 The Microsoft Support Policy for Server Clusters and the HCL
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=309395
Q327518 The Microsoft Support Policy for Clustered SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327518
Here are some links that will give a good understanding of Microsoft Cluster Server and SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
Support WebCast: Windows Clustering: An Overview of Microsoft Clustering Technologies
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=325423
Step-by-step instructions for creating and configuring a typical single quorum device multi-node server cluster using a shared disk on servers running the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating systems.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Microsoft Whitepaper - SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/techinf...vercluster.asp
SQL Server 2000 Pricing and Licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...rlicensing.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
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
|||I have two w2k3 servers set up as active/passive cluster. Is it possible to set up an active/active cluster on the two SQL2K servers for them
"DBA" wrote:
> I have two new SQL 2000 instances on separate Win2K3 servers. Is there a way within W2K3 to set them up as an active/active cluster. And do I need to set it up just one one server(insert cd and it will recognize the other server to connect.
|||With 2000. the right terminology is single or multi instance.
Active/Active terminology doesnot apply to SQL 2000.
Yes it is possible.
"DBA" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have two w2k3 servers set up as active/passive cluster. Is it possible to set up an active/active cluster on the two SQL2K servers for them
> "DBA" wrote:
We cannot take standalone Win2K3 servers and form a cluster. We need to have a Certfied Cluster Solution listed in Microsoft Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).
A certified cluster does not consist simply of parts that individually reside on the Microsoft Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).
For example, suppose Server model S, HBA model H, storage frame F, and fibre switch W are all certified with Microsoft. This does not mean that a cluster built with S+H+F+W is supported - and customers
requiring support should not simply build a solution with these components.
Non-certified cluster solutions are not guaranteed to operate correctly. For example, the shared disks may be visible to multiple nodes and this can lead to corruption of application data or instability where the
connection to the disks is not reliable. You can waste a lot of time by attempting to troubleshoot perceived server cluster issues that are being caused by the cluster hardware that you are using.
How to locate qualified cluster solutions for Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=828262
NOTE: If the cluster solution is not listed on the HCL or WSC in the Cluster category, the cluster solution is considered UNSUPPORTED. However, Microsoft PSS will offer troubleshooting tips if the customer
requests them. PSS does NOT guarantee that a resolution will be found for non-HCL or non-WSC Clusters. If no resolution is found, the incident is not refunded.
Q309395 The Microsoft Support Policy for Server Clusters and the HCL
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=309395
Q327518 The Microsoft Support Policy for Clustered SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327518
Here are some links that will give a good understanding of Microsoft Cluster Server and SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
Support WebCast: Windows Clustering: An Overview of Microsoft Clustering Technologies
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=325423
Step-by-step instructions for creating and configuring a typical single quorum device multi-node server cluster using a shared disk on servers running the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating systems.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Microsoft Whitepaper - SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/techinf...vercluster.asp
SQL Server 2000 Pricing and Licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...rlicensing.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
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
|||I have two w2k3 servers set up as active/passive cluster. Is it possible to set up an active/active cluster on the two SQL2K servers for them
"DBA" wrote:
> I have two new SQL 2000 instances on separate Win2K3 servers. Is there a way within W2K3 to set them up as an active/active cluster. And do I need to set it up just one one server(insert cd and it will recognize the other server to connect.
|||With 2000. the right terminology is single or multi instance.
Active/Active terminology doesnot apply to SQL 2000.
Yes it is possible.
"DBA" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have two w2k3 servers set up as active/passive cluster. Is it possible to set up an active/active cluster on the two SQL2K servers for them
> "DBA" wrote:
Active/Active Clustering - W2K - Adding More Instances
We currently have two W2K Enterprise servers running MSCS and each of these
is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running on
each server.
The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
implications of this would be.
I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
It is possible and, like you say, it becomes a resourcing issue. Give the
boxes as much as you can, keeping in mind a worse-case scenario of all
instances running on one node.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Mike@.Synergy" <Mike@.Synergy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com...
We currently have two W2K Enterprise servers running MSCS and each of these
is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running on
each server.
The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
implications of this would be.
I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
|||Hi
In the case of a cluster, the supported limit is 16 instances per cluster.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> It is possible and, like you say, it becomes a resourcing issue. Give the
> boxes as much as you can, keeping in mind a worse-case scenario of all
> instances running on one node.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "Mike@.Synergy" <Mike@.Synergy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com...
> We currently have two W2K Enterprise servers running MSCS and each of
these
> is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
> The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running
on
> each server.
> The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
> on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
> machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
> especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
> implications of this would be.
> I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
> possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
> Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
>
|||In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an even
number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need 2
or 4 (or more).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> In the case of a cluster, the supported limit is 16 instances per cluster.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> these
> on
>
|||Hi
Those Xeons ate HT so most likely, it will look like 6 processors. There are
some know issues under NT4.0 and earlier when using an odd number of
processors, but w2k and w2k3, odd number of processors is supported and runs
well. Some hardware is not capable of supporting odd number of processors,
but that is not a Windows limitation.
SQL is very happy with an odd number of processors, as on most big boxes (8
ways), usually SQL is setup to only use 7 processors to give the OS a
dedicated processors for Disk and memory management.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an
even
> number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need
2[vbcol=seagreen]
> or 4 (or more).
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
running[vbcol=seagreen]
environment,
>
|||"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an
even
> number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need
2
> or 4 (or more).
Do you have any cite for this?
>
|||we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you will
need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second, and
subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize a
different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> even
> 2
> Do you have any cite for this?
>
>
|||Actually, you can use 1433 sinced you are on a different IP address. Just
to keep things consistant, I don't use the default instance on a cluster.
That way all the instances have a consistant appearance on the network.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Mongold." <Tom Mongold.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com...
> we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
> instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you
will
> need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second,
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize a
> different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
need[vbcol=seagreen]
|||| From: "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com>
| References: <E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com>
<O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
<O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<xcIpd.13725$1u.11480@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>
<476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com>
| Subject: Re: Active/Active Clustering - W2K - Adding More Instances
| Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:55:21 -0500
| Lines: 43
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
| Message-ID: <OEt$LRP2EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.36.129.131
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12
.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering:15909
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
|
| Actually, you can use 1433 sinced you are on a different IP address. Just
| to keep things consistant, I don't use the default instance on a cluster.
| That way all the instances have a consistant appearance on the network.
|
| --
| Geoff N. Hiten
| Microsoft SQL Server MVP
| Senior Database Administrator
| Careerbuilder.com
|
| I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
| www.sqlpass.org
|
| "Tom Mongold." <Tom Mongold.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com...
| > we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
| > instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you
| will
| > need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second,
| and
| > subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize
a
| > different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
| >
| > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need
an
| > > even
| > > > number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option -
you'll
| need
| > > 2
| > > > or 4 (or more).
| > >
| > > Do you have any cite for this?
| > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
|
|
|
################################################## ########################33
33
In addition to the resources mentioned you will have to also present the
cluster with more shared disk resources on which the SQL Server data files
will reside.
Regards,
Shashank Pawar
SQL Server Support Engineer, Microsoft
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running on
each server.
The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
implications of this would be.
I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
It is possible and, like you say, it becomes a resourcing issue. Give the
boxes as much as you can, keeping in mind a worse-case scenario of all
instances running on one node.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Mike@.Synergy" <Mike@.Synergy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com...
We currently have two W2K Enterprise servers running MSCS and each of these
is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running on
each server.
The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
implications of this would be.
I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
|||Hi
In the case of a cluster, the supported limit is 16 instances per cluster.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> It is possible and, like you say, it becomes a resourcing issue. Give the
> boxes as much as you can, keeping in mind a worse-case scenario of all
> instances running on one node.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "Mike@.Synergy" <Mike@.Synergy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com...
> We currently have two W2K Enterprise servers running MSCS and each of
these
> is running MS SQL2000 enterprise.
> The Cluster is Active/Active and we have a single instance of SQL running
on
> each server.
> The question I have is would it be possible to add another Instance of SQL
> on both Boxes, as I understand you can have up to 16 instances on a Single
> machine but did not know whether this applied in a Clustered environment,
> especially in a Active/Active clustered environment, and what the
> implications of this would be.
> I also understand we will have to up the resources on the Server, if it is
> possible to add the extra instances; we are looking at a minimum of 4
> Gigabytes of RAM per server with Three 2.5 GHz Xeon Processors per server.
>
|||In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an even
number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need 2
or 4 (or more).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> In the case of a cluster, the supported limit is 16 instances per cluster.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> these
> on
>
|||Hi
Those Xeons ate HT so most likely, it will look like 6 processors. There are
some know issues under NT4.0 and earlier when using an odd number of
processors, but w2k and w2k3, odd number of processors is supported and runs
well. Some hardware is not capable of supporting odd number of processors,
but that is not a Windows limitation.
SQL is very happy with an odd number of processors, as on most big boxes (8
ways), usually SQL is setup to only use 7 processors to give the OS a
dedicated processors for Disk and memory management.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an
even
> number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need
2[vbcol=seagreen]
> or 4 (or more).
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
running[vbcol=seagreen]
environment,
>
|||"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need an
even
> number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option - you'll need
2
> or 4 (or more).
Do you have any cite for this?
>
|||we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you will
need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second, and
subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize a
different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> even
> 2
> Do you have any cite for this?
>
>
|||Actually, you can use 1433 sinced you are on a different IP address. Just
to keep things consistant, I don't use the default instance on a cluster.
That way all the instances have a consistant appearance on the network.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Mongold." <Tom Mongold.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com...
> we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
> instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you
will
> need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second,
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize a
> different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
need[vbcol=seagreen]
|||| From: "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com>
| References: <E3ADAAA6-9B7F-45CE-9D4A-D382936A82F4@.microsoft.com>
<O0mQmvx0EHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<ei2RYA00EHA.2316@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>
<O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
<xcIpd.13725$1u.11480@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>
<476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com>
| Subject: Re: Active/Active Clustering - W2K - Adding More Instances
| Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:55:21 -0500
| Lines: 43
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
| Message-ID: <OEt$LRP2EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.36.129.131
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12
.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering:15909
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
|
| Actually, you can use 1433 sinced you are on a different IP address. Just
| to keep things consistant, I don't use the default instance on a cluster.
| That way all the instances have a consistant appearance on the network.
|
| --
| Geoff N. Hiten
| Microsoft SQL Server MVP
| Senior Database Administrator
| Careerbuilder.com
|
| I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
| www.sqlpass.org
|
| "Tom Mongold." <Tom Mongold.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:476DE007-517C-40BE-B76A-8C51C59534DD@.microsoft.com...
| > we currently have 2 active / active SQL Clusters, that are running 2
| > instances each. Be aware that in addition to the added horsepower, you
| will
| > need additional IP Addresses for the extra instances. Also, your second,
| and
| > subsequent instances will be named instances, that will need to utilize
a
| > different port(1433 will already be in use by the default instance).
| >
| > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:O8EimD30EHA.132@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > In a symmetrical multi processing (SMP) OS such as Windows you need
an
| > > even
| > > > number of processors, so 3 CPUs in each box is not an option -
you'll
| need
| > > 2
| > > > or 4 (or more).
| > >
| > > Do you have any cite for this?
| > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
|
|
|
################################################## ########################33
33
In addition to the resources mentioned you will have to also present the
cluster with more shared disk resources on which the SQL Server data files
will reside.
Regards,
Shashank Pawar
SQL Server Support Engineer, Microsoft
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Active Active Clustering
I am planning to install Multiple Instance SQL Server 2000 cluster (two instances) on Windows 2000 Advanced servers (two nodes). All the examples I have seen deal with Single Instance SQL Servers. What I have read that in case of a Multiple Instance ins
tallation you merely run the SQL Server setup program another time after the installation of the first virtual server is completed. I have also read that during the install you chose one of the nodes (one of the two Windows boxes) as the owner of one virt
ual SQL Server instance. Then when you run the SQL Server setup program a second time, you specify the other node as the owner of the other SQL Server virtual instance.
My question is this: where do I specify a node as the owner of a particular SQL Server instance? On the SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering white paper, Appendix B, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...x?pf=true#XSLT
section133121120120 step 10 shows a dialog box where you specify the configured nodes. Do I specify only one node as the Configured Node? Is that how I identify the node that owns the particular SQL Server instance? Or do I we identify it some other way
? Thanks.
I am sorry that I used the old terminology from SQL Server 7.0. Thanks in advance for your help.
|||You have a preferred owners list on the properties page of the resource
group. The host nodes are listed in preferred order. The actual ownership
can be changed by moving the group to a particular host. During setup, you
install SQL from the node that owns the disk resource where you intend to
put SQL. The dialog box you refer to selects the nodes that SQL is allowed
to run on. Once SQL is installed, the instance can be moved to any allowed
node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"EY" <shafaqrahim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69BBB5B8-E23A-451F-B8FE-EAADD88A8E56@.microsoft.com...
> I am planning to install Multiple Instance SQL Server 2000 cluster (two
instances) on Windows 2000 Advanced servers (two nodes). All the examples I
have seen deal with Single Instance SQL Servers. What I have read that in
case of a Multiple Instance installation you merely run the SQL Server setup
program another time after the installation of the first virtual server is
completed. I have also read that during the install you chose one of the
nodes (one of the two Windows boxes) as the owner of one virtual SQL Server
instance. Then when you run the SQL Server setup program a second time, you
specify the other node as the owner of the other SQL Server virtual
instance.
> My question is this: where do I specify a node as the owner of a
particular SQL Server instance? On the SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
white paper, Appendix B,
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...on133121120120
step 10 shows a dialog box where you specify the configured nodes. Do I
specify only one node as the Configured Node? Is that how I identify the
node that owns the particular SQL Server instance? Or do I we identify it
some other way? Thanks.
>
|||Thanks Mr. Hitten for answering my question so promptly.
tallation you merely run the SQL Server setup program another time after the installation of the first virtual server is completed. I have also read that during the install you chose one of the nodes (one of the two Windows boxes) as the owner of one virt
ual SQL Server instance. Then when you run the SQL Server setup program a second time, you specify the other node as the owner of the other SQL Server virtual instance.
My question is this: where do I specify a node as the owner of a particular SQL Server instance? On the SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering white paper, Appendix B, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...x?pf=true#XSLT
section133121120120 step 10 shows a dialog box where you specify the configured nodes. Do I specify only one node as the Configured Node? Is that how I identify the node that owns the particular SQL Server instance? Or do I we identify it some other way
? Thanks.
I am sorry that I used the old terminology from SQL Server 7.0. Thanks in advance for your help.
|||You have a preferred owners list on the properties page of the resource
group. The host nodes are listed in preferred order. The actual ownership
can be changed by moving the group to a particular host. During setup, you
install SQL from the node that owns the disk resource where you intend to
put SQL. The dialog box you refer to selects the nodes that SQL is allowed
to run on. Once SQL is installed, the instance can be moved to any allowed
node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"EY" <shafaqrahim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69BBB5B8-E23A-451F-B8FE-EAADD88A8E56@.microsoft.com...
> I am planning to install Multiple Instance SQL Server 2000 cluster (two
instances) on Windows 2000 Advanced servers (two nodes). All the examples I
have seen deal with Single Instance SQL Servers. What I have read that in
case of a Multiple Instance installation you merely run the SQL Server setup
program another time after the installation of the first virtual server is
completed. I have also read that during the install you chose one of the
nodes (one of the two Windows boxes) as the owner of one virtual SQL Server
instance. Then when you run the SQL Server setup program a second time, you
specify the other node as the owner of the other SQL Server virtual
instance.
> My question is this: where do I specify a node as the owner of a
particular SQL Server instance? On the SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
white paper, Appendix B,
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...on133121120120
step 10 shows a dialog box where you specify the configured nodes. Do I
specify only one node as the Configured Node? Is that how I identify the
node that owns the particular SQL Server instance? Or do I we identify it
some other way? Thanks.
>
|||Thanks Mr. Hitten for answering my question so promptly.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Accessing SSIS on servers with only Named Instances
Here's my problem:
I've entered a set of database maintenance plans in SQL 2005 and would like to export them to other servers. I've built four database servers on this Windows 2003 server, all named instances. One is SQL 2000, the others are all SQL 2005. SSIS is running on this Windows server using the server name, since it doesn't support multiple instances. The maintenance plans are all functioning properly.
I want to export the maintenance plans to other servers and the research I've done directs me to go into Integration Services, open up the MSDB database and select the packages there, and select export. The problem is that when I attempt to open up MSDB I always get a connection failure. I don't know which of the SQL Servers the maintenance plans are loaded into (well, I have a hunch, but it's very possible I'm wrong) and I can't figure out how to get the SSIS server opened up properly in Management Studio. I've tried changing the MsDtsSrvr.ini.xml file and setting the <ServerName>.</ServerName> value from "."to the name of the server I think contains the data, but that caused Integration Services to not come up after the restart.
The maintenance plans I developed were quite complex due to error handling steps I included, and I'd really rather not have to build them manually for each of my servers here.
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Well, I solved the problem myself, by just slowing down a bit. I stopped Integration Services on the Windows Server, changed the MsDtsSrvr.ini.xml file <ServerName> setting to the name of the server I thought contained the maintenance plans, then restarted Integration Services. After that I was able to successfully connect to the SSIS and export the maintenance plans by opening up the MSDB database, drilling down to the maintenance plan I wanted to export, right-clicking, then selecting Export. I then entered the server name of the destination server (database server, not SSIS) and drilled down to the Maintenance Plans folder, and clicking OK.
The maint plans are now where I wanted them, without having to rebuild them for each server.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Accessing Same Remote Table Form Two Linked Servers Return Different Results
We have two SQL Server 2000 instances A and B, both have
a linked server "NAR" defined to access the same database
also called "NAR" at a third remote SQL Server instance.
But executing the following query returns different
results: A returns NULL result set, while B returns the
expected result set.
The query simply selects the new or updated transactions
in the remote table based on a timestamp.
What could be the reason causing this different result?
What makes things even more complicated is that, While
executing on A, not all dates returns NULL set, some of
the dates return result set just fine. While on B, it
always return expected result set no matter what dates you
set. This is what we expected. But how do you explain this
behavior on A?
Select s.TransID
From NAR.NAR.dbo.StoreTransaction s
Where s.CreateTimeStamp > '2004-03-02 18:00:00'
And s.CreateTimestamp <= getdate()
OR
s.updateTimeStamp > '2004-03-02 18:00:00'
And s.updateTimestamp <= getdate()- What results do you get if you were to execute that query on NAR itself?
Same results as from B?
- Have you tried using OPENQUERY when running the query from A to see what
results you get?
- Another suggestion might be to run a profiler trace when the query is
being executed from A->NAR and B->NAR and check for differences.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Thank you for your reply, I posted the problem in many places and to
many so-called SQL experts, nobody replied so far except for you.
Regarding your suggestion:
- What results do you get if you were to execute that query on NAR
itself?
Good point! It occurred to me last week that it may be a problem on NAR
itself. And IT IS! I ran the query in SQL ANALYZER of NAR instance
changing the from clause to reference table StoreTransaction directly,
what is interesting is:
Select count(*) returns correct number in a few seconds, but, select any
column or run all listed columnsreturns NULL after running for almost 2
minutes.
e.g, select count(*) OR Select count(Transid)
returns correct number, select Transid returns NULL.
The from and where clause is exactly the same.
And this problem can be found only on certain dates. For example, Mar.
22 is not OK, but March 23 is fine.
It seems to be data related, but how do you explain aggregate returns
corerct results?
- Have you tried using OPENQUERY when running the query from A to see
what
results you get?
How do I use OPENQUERY in SQL ANALYZER?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
a linked server "NAR" defined to access the same database
also called "NAR" at a third remote SQL Server instance.
But executing the following query returns different
results: A returns NULL result set, while B returns the
expected result set.
The query simply selects the new or updated transactions
in the remote table based on a timestamp.
What could be the reason causing this different result?
What makes things even more complicated is that, While
executing on A, not all dates returns NULL set, some of
the dates return result set just fine. While on B, it
always return expected result set no matter what dates you
set. This is what we expected. But how do you explain this
behavior on A?
Select s.TransID
From NAR.NAR.dbo.StoreTransaction s
Where s.CreateTimeStamp > '2004-03-02 18:00:00'
And s.CreateTimestamp <= getdate()
OR
s.updateTimeStamp > '2004-03-02 18:00:00'
And s.updateTimestamp <= getdate()- What results do you get if you were to execute that query on NAR itself?
Same results as from B?
- Have you tried using OPENQUERY when running the query from A to see what
results you get?
- Another suggestion might be to run a profiler trace when the query is
being executed from A->NAR and B->NAR and check for differences.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Thank you for your reply, I posted the problem in many places and to
many so-called SQL experts, nobody replied so far except for you.
Regarding your suggestion:
- What results do you get if you were to execute that query on NAR
itself?
Good point! It occurred to me last week that it may be a problem on NAR
itself. And IT IS! I ran the query in SQL ANALYZER of NAR instance
changing the from clause to reference table StoreTransaction directly,
what is interesting is:
Select count(*) returns correct number in a few seconds, but, select any
column or run all listed columnsreturns NULL after running for almost 2
minutes.
e.g, select count(*) OR Select count(Transid)
returns correct number, select Transid returns NULL.
The from and where clause is exactly the same.
And this problem can be found only on certain dates. For example, Mar.
22 is not OK, but March 23 is fine.
It seems to be data related, but how do you explain aggregate returns
corerct results?
- Have you tried using OPENQUERY when running the query from A to see
what
results you get?
How do I use OPENQUERY in SQL ANALYZER?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Accessing one db by two sql server instances (eg. native vs vmware)
Hi there
As many people do nowadays, I have 2 XP installations on my laptop -
one
running natively and one in vmware box running on ubuntu (situation
even more common with osx on intelmacs).
Since I would like to be able to work on same development projects in
both these environments, depending on the situation, I was wondering
how should I cope with DBs synchronization between two sql server
instances running under those two environments.
The simplest solution would be deploy the database in native windows
sql server installation, and attach the _same_ database files when
running from vmware (via sharing their folder on mounted ntfs
partition). So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
course they would never be accessed at the same time.
Would it be possible at all without any data corruption assuming I
would run the same server versions (same SPs applied etc. - for the
time being it's 2kSP4)?
thanks
HP> So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
> course they would never be accessed at the same time.
This should work fine. Regular backups won't hurt either.
Note that the Best Practice in development is to keep database DDL scripts
under source control rather than only in a physical database.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"HP" <ha5en1@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187778620.953857.97210@.x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there
> As many people do nowadays, I have 2 XP installations on my laptop -
> one
> running natively and one in vmware box running on ubuntu (situation
> even more common with osx on intelmacs).
> Since I would like to be able to work on same development projects in
> both these environments, depending on the situation, I was wondering
> how should I cope with DBs synchronization between two sql server
> instances running under those two environments.
> The simplest solution would be deploy the database in native windows
> sql server installation, and attach the _same_ database files when
> running from vmware (via sharing their folder on mounted ntfs
> partition). So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
> course they would never be accessed at the same time.
> Would it be possible at all without any data corruption assuming I
> would run the same server versions (same SPs applied etc. - for the
> time being it's 2kSP4)?
> thanks
> HP
>
As many people do nowadays, I have 2 XP installations on my laptop -
one
running natively and one in vmware box running on ubuntu (situation
even more common with osx on intelmacs).
Since I would like to be able to work on same development projects in
both these environments, depending on the situation, I was wondering
how should I cope with DBs synchronization between two sql server
instances running under those two environments.
The simplest solution would be deploy the database in native windows
sql server installation, and attach the _same_ database files when
running from vmware (via sharing their folder on mounted ntfs
partition). So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
course they would never be accessed at the same time.
Would it be possible at all without any data corruption assuming I
would run the same server versions (same SPs applied etc. - for the
time being it's 2kSP4)?
thanks
HP> So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
> course they would never be accessed at the same time.
This should work fine. Regular backups won't hurt either.
Note that the Best Practice in development is to keep database DDL scripts
under source control rather than only in a physical database.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"HP" <ha5en1@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187778620.953857.97210@.x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there
> As many people do nowadays, I have 2 XP installations on my laptop -
> one
> running natively and one in vmware box running on ubuntu (situation
> even more common with osx on intelmacs).
> Since I would like to be able to work on same development projects in
> both these environments, depending on the situation, I was wondering
> how should I cope with DBs synchronization between two sql server
> instances running under those two environments.
> The simplest solution would be deploy the database in native windows
> sql server installation, and attach the _same_ database files when
> running from vmware (via sharing their folder on mounted ntfs
> partition). So the DB files would attached to two servers, but of
> course they would never be accessed at the same time.
> Would it be possible at all without any data corruption assuming I
> would run the same server versions (same SPs applied etc. - for the
> time being it's 2kSP4)?
> thanks
> HP
>
Accessing named instances
I am looking to see if anyone has had this problem or ideas of what I might
try. We have been running a Windows 2000 cluster connected to a powervault
for two years as a single instance with no problems.
I am in the process of setting of a Windows 2003 Active-Passive two node
cluster connected to a SAN. I have fourinstances/virtual servers installed
and I can access the "default instance" from any machine with enterprise
manager within our network. This behavior is as expected.
I can only access the named instances from machines within the cluster's
subnet, which is not expected. I have all the instances using port 1433; not
sure if that makes a difference.
Need some help pointing our network team in the right direction. They have
had me turn off the second node, and disable NIC teaming to get down to a
single server, single NIC environment, and I still don't have success.
Any ideas on whether this is a SQL setup problem or a network/firewall
configuration issue?
Respectfully,
Brett
Hi Brett,
Some things to try:
Can the IP addresses of the named instances be resolved (DNS, hosts)?
Maybe you can try connecting to the instance using the IP address.
Or to test, add it in
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
Chau chau,
Pascalos
"Brett F" wrote:
> I am looking to see if anyone has had this problem or ideas of what I might
> try. We have been running a Windows 2000 cluster connected to a powervault
> for two years as a single instance with no problems.
> I am in the process of setting of a Windows 2003 Active-Passive two node
> cluster connected to a SAN. I have fourinstances/virtual servers installed
> and I can access the "default instance" from any machine with enterprise
> manager within our network. This behavior is as expected.
> I can only access the named instances from machines within the cluster's
> subnet, which is not expected. I have all the instances using port 1433; not
> sure if that makes a difference.
> Need some help pointing our network team in the right direction. They have
> had me turn off the second node, and disable NIC teaming to get down to a
> single server, single NIC environment, and I still don't have success.
> Any ideas on whether this is a SQL setup problem or a network/firewall
> configuration issue?
> Respectfully,
> Brett
try. We have been running a Windows 2000 cluster connected to a powervault
for two years as a single instance with no problems.
I am in the process of setting of a Windows 2003 Active-Passive two node
cluster connected to a SAN. I have fourinstances/virtual servers installed
and I can access the "default instance" from any machine with enterprise
manager within our network. This behavior is as expected.
I can only access the named instances from machines within the cluster's
subnet, which is not expected. I have all the instances using port 1433; not
sure if that makes a difference.
Need some help pointing our network team in the right direction. They have
had me turn off the second node, and disable NIC teaming to get down to a
single server, single NIC environment, and I still don't have success.
Any ideas on whether this is a SQL setup problem or a network/firewall
configuration issue?
Respectfully,
Brett
Hi Brett,
Some things to try:
Can the IP addresses of the named instances be resolved (DNS, hosts)?
Maybe you can try connecting to the instance using the IP address.
Or to test, add it in
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
Chau chau,
Pascalos
"Brett F" wrote:
> I am looking to see if anyone has had this problem or ideas of what I might
> try. We have been running a Windows 2000 cluster connected to a powervault
> for two years as a single instance with no problems.
> I am in the process of setting of a Windows 2003 Active-Passive two node
> cluster connected to a SAN. I have fourinstances/virtual servers installed
> and I can access the "default instance" from any machine with enterprise
> manager within our network. This behavior is as expected.
> I can only access the named instances from machines within the cluster's
> subnet, which is not expected. I have all the instances using port 1433; not
> sure if that makes a difference.
> Need some help pointing our network team in the right direction. They have
> had me turn off the second node, and disable NIC teaming to get down to a
> single server, single NIC environment, and I still don't have success.
> Any ideas on whether this is a SQL setup problem or a network/firewall
> configuration issue?
> Respectfully,
> Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)