ACTIVE\ACTIVE Cluster Configuration, Urgent

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

|||

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

Tej

sql

active/active sql node

Hello,
This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster environment.
I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one virtual name such
as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active, it seems to me that
system does not allow me to have something like virtualsql01 and
virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like virtualsql01\xxxx.
My question is that how can we have something like virtualsql01 and
virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe it will be easy for
everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
Thanks.
Your VirtualSQL01 is the default instance for the cluster. Like a
stand-alone server, you only get one default instance, except it is per
cluster, not per node. I avoid the whole default name on a cluster and use
only named instances. That way, I don't have to explain to the developers
why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
> environment. I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one
> virtual name such as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active,
> it seems to me that system does not allow me to have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like
> virtualsql01\xxxx. My question is that how can we have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe
> it will be easy for everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Just want to add that if you already have virutalsql01 in a cluster, you
can't have virtualsql01\xxx in that same cluster. In other words, there can
be only a single SQL instance per virtual server.
Suffice it to say that you are not the only person puzzled by this peculiar
design choice. I for one would much prefer what you wanted, i.e. simply
virtualsql01, virutalsql02, and so on for different SQL instances in a
cluster.
But if you are willing to explicitly use port numbers, you don't have to
force your users to use the format of virtualserver\sqlinstance. Instead,
they can use <fqdn>,<port number> (e.g. nycsql01.nyc.myfirm.com,9876) to
connect. Some people consider using an explicit port number in a connection
string not to be best practice, I should note.
Linchi
"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
> environment. I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one
> virtual name such as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active,
> it seems to me that system does not allow me to have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like
> virtualsql01\xxxx. My question is that how can we have something like
> virtualsql01 and virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe
> it will be easy for everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Normally, on a stand-alone system, you would get 1 ServerName (default
instance) and then possibly several named instances ServerName\Instance1,
ServerName\Instance2, . . ., ServerName\Instance15, up to 15 named and 1
default, or 16 namedactually, you can have many more, but Microsoft only
supporting up to 16 total instances, named or default.
The problem with clusters is that each participating node looks like a stand
alone server in that each may host all instances; thus, the binaries and the
naming convention above still applies; however, for a cluster, you have to
create a virtual server resource group for each instance to support the Disk
(which is the critical factor), IP, and Network Name. It is the Network
Name, which knows nothing of SQL Server instances, that must each be unique
within the cluster installation.
So, you end up with unique network names because of clustering, which is a
restriction even before SQL Server is installed, and unique instance names
because of multiple concurrent SQL Server hosting on any one failover node.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> This is my time to setup active/active SQL on two nodes cluster
environment.
> I am very familiar with active/passive in which setup one virtual name
such
> as virtualsql01 and publish to user. For active/active, it seems to me
that
> system does not allow me to have something like virtualsql01 and
> virtualsql02 but it forces to key-in instant name like virtualsql01\xxxx.
> My question is that how can we have something like virtualsql01 and
> virtualsql02 in the same cluster environment. I believe it will be easy
for
> everyone in my place to call db server in this way.
> Thanks.
>
|||Thanks to everyone, very straight to the point, keen and concise.
Naruphon
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23AOg2vi2FHA.1576@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Normally, on a stand-alone system, you would get 1 ServerName (default
> instance) and then possibly several named instances ServerName\Instance1,
> ServerName\Instance2, . . ., ServerName\Instance15, up to 15 named and 1
> default, or 16 namedactually, you can have many more, but Microsoft only
> supporting up to 16 total instances, named or default.
> The problem with clusters is that each participating node looks like a
> stand
> alone server in that each may host all instances; thus, the binaries and
> the
> naming convention above still applies; however, for a cluster, you have to
> create a virtual server resource group for each instance to support the
> Disk
> (which is the critical factor), IP, and Network Name. It is the Network
> Name, which knows nothing of SQL Server instances, that must each be
> unique
> within the cluster installation.
> So, you end up with unique network names because of clustering, which is a
> restriction even before SQL Server is installed, and unique instance names
> because of multiple concurrent SQL Server hosting on any one failover
> node.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "naruphon" <naruphon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O5OnMwY2FHA.3416@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> environment.
> such
> that
> for
>

Active/Active issues with SQL 2000 on Windows Server 2003

I'm planning on installing SQL 2000 on a 2 node Windows
Server 2003. I want to have both nodes to be active SQL
servers and they will both be available for each other in
the case of a Failure. Any issues regarding this tipe of
setup?
Is there a way to setup the second node without having to
create a new instance on the second node? I would prefer
only to have different Computer names?
Thanks
Christian Poupart
chpoupart@.ogilvyrenault.com
Each instance of a cluster requires a separate virtual server. IF you want
two SQL instances, you will need two virtual servers, each containing its
own instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Christian Poupart" <chpoupart@.ogilvyrenault.com> wrote in message
news:1f94f01c4588a$e49752b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm planning on installing SQL 2000 on a 2 node Windows
> Server 2003. I want to have both nodes to be active SQL
> servers and they will both be available for each other in
> the case of a Failure. Any issues regarding this tipe of
> setup?
> Is there a way to setup the second node without having to
> create a new instance on the second node? I would prefer
> only to have different Computer names?
> Thanks
> Christian Poupart
> chpoupart@.ogilvyrenault.com

active/active clustering

in an active/active clustering,
do the two nodes have the instance of sqlserver with the same name ?
can we say that we were serving on two hosts load balancing ?
thanks
Comments Inline
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"ilkozer" <ilkozer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23g4fRIzmEHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> in an active/active clustering,
> do the two nodes have the instance of sqlserver with the same name ?
Not at the same time.
> can we say that we were serving on two hosts load balancing ?
No.
> thanks
>

Active/Active Cluster.

Hi everyone,
We have the following setup:
Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition Cluster with 2 nodes. SQL Server 2000
Enterprise edition Virtual Server1 - currently Active/Passive Cluster.
Shared storage and Quorum drive on SAN.
Database1 on Virtual Server1.
The goal is to set up a reports Database wich will server as a mirror(but
not exact mirror, because it will keep archive data as well) for Database1.
Currently we consider the following proposition:
We want to set up another database(Database2). Our Application will be
writing the same data to both Database1 and Database2(not necessarily at the
same time).
As data gets out of date it will be removed from Database1(but not from
Database2). Database2 is intended to be used for reports(intensive queries).
Would it be a good solution to set up an Active/Active Cluster(another
Virtual Server with the Active/Passive nodes swapped).
If yes, could you provide detailed information(or references/URLs to it)
regarding the implementation - what needs to be done and what are the steps
to follow.
If no, could you propose alternative solutions.
Best Regards.
Sezgin Rafed
I am not sure I have even to go on, no memory requirements, usage hours,
etc. You can indeed create another instance and run it on the current node
or the second node. You can also add a 3 node since you are running on
Windows Server 2003.
With that said, unless unavoidable, I like to stay away running instances on
each node. I like to have a spare at all times.
The setup steps are the same as the default node, except you have to name
the instance.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Sezgin Rafed" <anonymous@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:%23ia3zHl6EHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone,
> We have the following setup:
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition Cluster with 2 nodes. SQL Server
> 2000
> Enterprise edition Virtual Server1 - currently Active/Passive Cluster.
> Shared storage and Quorum drive on SAN.
> Database1 on Virtual Server1.
> The goal is to set up a reports Database wich will server as a mirror(but
> not exact mirror, because it will keep archive data as well) for
> Database1.
> Currently we consider the following proposition:
> We want to set up another database(Database2). Our Application will be
> writing the same data to both Database1 and Database2(not necessarily at
> the
> same time).
> As data gets out of date it will be removed from Database1(but not from
> Database2). Database2 is intended to be used for reports(intensive
> queries).
> Would it be a good solution to set up an Active/Active Cluster(another
> Virtual Server with the Active/Passive nodes swapped).
> If yes, could you provide detailed information(or references/URLs to it)
> regarding the implementation - what needs to be done and what are the
> steps
> to follow.
> If no, could you propose alternative solutions.
> Best Regards.
> Sezgin Rafed
>
sql

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.â'
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.â'
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > instance.
> > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > online.â'
> > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > first instance as default.
> > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > I
> > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > different?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alim
> >
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> > First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> > less confusing to everyone.
> >
> > The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> > not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> >
> > Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> > Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> >
> > You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> > You can only specify one file location during the install.
> >
> > And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> > I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> > explain why the names look different.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi All,
> > > I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> > > 2003/SQL Server 2000 â' sp3). I had successfully install the first
> > > instance.
> > > But the name instance failed. â'Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> > > online.â'
> > > Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> > > choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> > > For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> > > first instance as default.
> > > For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> > > I
> > > give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> > > different?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alim
> > >
> >
> >

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instance.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
Alim
I didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>
|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Active/Active Cluster Installation Failed

Hi All,
I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first instanc
e.
But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to come
online.”
Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
first instance as default.
For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can I
give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
different?
Thanks,
AlimI didn't think SQL Server's clustering was Active/Active capable - only
Active/Passive.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 - sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. "Error: The cluster resource failed to come
> online."
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is much
less confusing to everyone.
The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
You can only specify one file location during the install.
And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the same.
I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
explain why the names look different.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I am trying to install active/active two nodes cluster (Windows Server
> 2003/SQL Server 2000 – sp3). I had successfully install the first
> instance.
> But the name instance failed. “Error: The cluster resource failed to co
me
> online.”
> Also, I did not see any option to choose log file location (only able to
> choose data file location). Would you please give me some hints?
> For the first instance, I named the first virtual server as SQLVR1 and the
> first instance as default.
> For the second virtual server, do I have to name it as SQLVR1\xxxxxx? Can
> I
> give the virtual server and the name instance same name or they have to be
> different?
> Thanks,
> Alim
>|||> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
instance it is.
Linchi
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> First, use the term "multi-instance" instead of "Active/Active". It is mu
ch
> less confusing to everyone.
> The Application Event log should tell you you why the cluster resource did
> not come on line. My guess is this is the problem:
> Installation of a named instance of SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a
> Windows Server 2003-based cluster fails
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
> You can change the log file location after the system is up and running.
> You can only specify one file location during the install.
> And yes, the virtual server name and the SQL instance name must be the sam
e.
> I usually use only named instances on a cluster to keep from having to
> explain why the names look different.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "alim" <alim@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C2E1F14-C448-497B-AFB2-E26F2B57BD29@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with active/passive
configuration which is much easier.
Thanks!
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hmmm... They can be the same or different. We typically just name the
> instances SQL1, SQL2, etc. so that we can easily tell/communicate which
> instance it is.
> Linchi
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>sql

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.

Account for SQL Server services

Hi,
When I install cluster SQL Server in two nodes (active-passive), I used
valid administrator account for all nodes. After install, I changed SQL Agent
service account for replicate database. SA asked me to change the SQL Server
service account to not using currently administrator account under the
domain. If I changed what happy after stop and restart SQL, the cluster will
work or not? I mean the failover or fail back.
Regards!
-Chen
Use Enterprise Manager to change the SQL Server or SQL Agent service account
information. EM is cluster-aware and will make all necessary changes for
you.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Chen" <Chen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51ED33DF-3880-46AB-879C-E00DE0E0670F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> When I install cluster SQL Server in two nodes (active-passive), I used
> valid administrator account for all nodes. After install, I changed SQL
> Agent
> service account for replicate database. SA asked me to change the SQL
> Server
> service account to not using currently administrator account under the
> domain. If I changed what happy after stop and restart SQL, the cluster
> will
> work or not? I mean the failover or fail back.
> Regards!
> -Chen