Hello,
Has anyone attempted in building a 2-node Active/Active Windows MSCS Cluster
where node 1 is running Exchange 2003 and node 2 is running SQL2000?
My proposed hardware will be
2 HP DL380 G4 Boxes
Dual Xeon 3.6Ghz/2MB Processors
5GB RAM
Dual MSA1000's Controllers
Cluster Failover Kit
Plus all other required accessories.
If not has anyone created a 3-node or 4-node clustered environment providing
high availabily for SQL and Exchange? Or does anyone recommend a solution
for providing high availabily for SQL and Exchange?
Any feedback will be much appreciated. Please email me at
sbalourdos@.hotmail.com
Thanks!
Jedi
I would recommend a minimum of 3 nodes as you would be putting a huge load
on a system that could potentially have to run SQL and Exchange at the same
time. By using 3 nodes you could controll SQL and Exchange Instance failover
with Preferred Owners. If your going to only use 2 nodes make sure you scale
each node to run both Exchange and SQL. Other issues you may run into are
with Memeory Management. In particular /PAE boot.ini switch which Exchange
can not use and SQL can.
Physical Addressing Extensions enable a computer to access more than 4 GB of
physical memory (RAM). Exchange Server does not support PAE. PAE enables
Windows to access more than 4 gigabytes (GB) of physical memory. Exchange
Server cannot use more than 4 GB of physical memory, and there is no benefit
to installing more than 4 GB of RAM on a computer that is dedicated to
running Exchange Server. PAE is enabled when the /PAE startup switch is
present in the Boot.ini file on boot-up or when the Windows Server 2003
operating system detects hot-add memory devices. Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise Edition and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition automatically
enable PAE only if the server is using hot-add memory devices
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...f2c190953.mspx
CT
"Jedi" wrote:
> Hello,
> Has anyone attempted in building a 2-node Active/Active Windows MSCS Cluster
> where node 1 is running Exchange 2003 and node 2 is running SQL2000?
> My proposed hardware will be
> 2 HP DL380 G4 Boxes
> Dual Xeon 3.6Ghz/2MB Processors
> 5GB RAM
> Dual MSA1000's Controllers
> Cluster Failover Kit
> Plus all other required accessories.
> If not has anyone created a 3-node or 4-node clustered environment providing
> high availabily for SQL and Exchange? Or does anyone recommend a solution
> for providing high availabily for SQL and Exchange?
> Any feedback will be much appreciated. Please email me at
> sbalourdos@.hotmail.com
> Thanks!
>
>
|||I believe Mike from MS already gave you a great answer on this in another
forum.
Only thing I would add, is another node. Make a 3 node cluster, with the 3rd
for failover of either SQL or Exchange.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jedi" <sbalourdos@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kS35e.185$fa7.113@.fe09.lga...
> Hello,
> Has anyone attempted in building a 2-node Active/Active Windows MSCS
> Cluster
> where node 1 is running Exchange 2003 and node 2 is running SQL2000?
> My proposed hardware will be
> 2 HP DL380 G4 Boxes
> Dual Xeon 3.6Ghz/2MB Processors
> 5GB RAM
> Dual MSA1000's Controllers
> Cluster Failover Kit
> Plus all other required accessories.
> If not has anyone created a 3-node or 4-node clustered environment
> providing
> high availabily for SQL and Exchange? Or does anyone recommend a solution
> for providing high availabily for SQL and Exchange?
> Any feedback will be much appreciated. Please email me at
> sbalourdos@.hotmail.com
> Thanks!
>
>
|||If you want high availability, putting both of these in the same cluster
isn't the way to do it.
"Jedi" <sbalourdos@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kS35e.185$fa7.113@.fe09.lga...
> Hello,
> Has anyone attempted in building a 2-node Active/Active Windows MSCS
> Cluster
> where node 1 is running Exchange 2003 and node 2 is running SQL2000?
> My proposed hardware will be
> 2 HP DL380 G4 Boxes
> Dual Xeon 3.6Ghz/2MB Processors
> 5GB RAM
> Dual MSA1000's Controllers
> Cluster Failover Kit
> Plus all other required accessories.
> If not has anyone created a 3-node or 4-node clustered environment
> providing
> high availabily for SQL and Exchange? Or does anyone recommend a solution
> for providing high availabily for SQL and Exchange?
> Any feedback will be much appreciated. Please email me at
> sbalourdos@.hotmail.com
> Thanks!
>
>
|||Mike,
It is completely understood however during normal uptime, each server will
run on its respective node. All issues concerning memory starvation and
other performance problems would occur during a failover event which would
last about 24-36 hours maximum. Here are some other tactics I plan on
implementing in order to make sure that everything runs as smooth as
possible during a failover period:
- I would bind the SQL Server to the second processor, Processor 1,
(Processor 0 is the first Processor) If I'm correct, Exchange Server 2003
is not capable of binding to a particular processor like SQL Server can.
- I would limit SQL Server to a maximum of 1.5 GB of RAM (Please see my
proposed configuration below. I plan on having 5GB of Physical RAM
Available on each node.)
- I would enable the /3GB Boot.ini switch on both nodes.
- I would NOT enable the /PAE Boot.ini switch on any node.
- Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
Another argument I would like to make is Small Business Server 2000/2003
which runs Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, Exchange Server 2003, plus
a few other apps. Other than a limitation of licenses, are there any
physical differences to the components? (Windows Server 2003, SQL Server
2000, and Exchange Server 2003 which is designed to have all three running
on the same box) I couldn't find any documentation citing differences of
the components compared to the separate full versions.
By the way, My company has only 40 employees but our mail server and sql
server are mission critical. A 3-node cluster will shoot our cluster
hardware cost considerably higher.
Thank you for your time.
"Mike Rosado [MSFT]" <mikeros@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:l6FiZZ2OFHA.2944@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hi Jedi,
> If you look at the Exchange 2000 SP3 whitepaper we have published at the
> following link:
> <
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en>
> You'll find the following comment:
> However, if you are running other memory intensive applications in
> conjunction with Exchange 2000, such as Microsoft SQL Server, then
> increasing the physical
> memory size beyond 3 GB can provide greater server performance using the
> following article:
> 313707 XADM: An Exchange 2000 Server with the "/3GB" Switch in the
> Boot.ini
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=313707
> As a rule of thumb we don't recommend customers installing both of these
> applications on the same set of Cluster nodes, due to memory management
> starvation
> issue that have been seen in the past. So we point customers to the
> following statement on the link below, which most of the times does not
> seem to be enough of
> a supporting document to convince them. But this is a management decision
> every customer has to make, then live with the consequences should they
> start
> experiencing memory management starvation issues.
> Chapter 12 of the SQL 2000 Resource Kit
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...art4/c1261.asp
> Miscellaneous Configuration Issues
> ----
> 1. If encryption is used in a clustered SQL Server environment, all nodes
> must have the certificate applied.
> 2. It is not recommended to have both Microsoft Exchange 2000 and SQL
> Server 2000 on the same cluster.
> --
> Hope this helps,
> Mike Rosado
> Windows 2000 MCSE + MCDBA
> Microsoft Enterprise Platform Support
> Windows NT/2000/2003 Cluster Technologies
> ================================================== ==
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ================================================== ==
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> <http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm>
> --Original Message--
>
|||Odds are with that configuration, the failover will fail and you will not
get fault tolerance. If you restart the cluster, then you might get both
applications to run on the same box. But you probably will not get a
suitable failover after the machines have been running for a period of time.
"Jedi" <sbalourdos@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2GK5e.1010$AQ6.398@.fe12.lga...
> Mike,
> It is completely understood however during normal uptime, each server will
> run on its respective node. All issues concerning memory starvation and
> other performance problems would occur during a failover event which would
> last about 24-36 hours maximum. Here are some other tactics I plan on
> implementing in order to make sure that everything runs as smooth as
> possible during a failover period:
> - I would bind the SQL Server to the second processor, Processor 1,
> (Processor 0 is the first Processor) If I'm correct, Exchange Server 2003
> is not capable of binding to a particular processor like SQL Server can.
> - I would limit SQL Server to a maximum of 1.5 GB of RAM (Please see my
> proposed configuration below. I plan on having 5GB of Physical RAM
> Available on each node.)
> - I would enable the /3GB Boot.ini switch on both nodes.
> - I would NOT enable the /PAE Boot.ini switch on any node.
> - Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Another argument I would like to make is Small Business Server 2000/2003
> which runs Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, Exchange Server 2003,
> plus a few other apps. Other than a limitation of licenses, are there any
> physical differences to the components? (Windows Server 2003, SQL Server
> 2000, and Exchange Server 2003 which is designed to have all three running
> on the same box) I couldn't find any documentation citing differences of
> the components compared to the separate full versions.
> By the way, My company has only 40 employees but our mail server and sql
> server are mission critical. A 3-node cluster will shoot our cluster
> hardware cost considerably higher.
> Thank you for your time.
>
> "Mike Rosado [MSFT]" <mikeros@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:l6FiZZ2OFHA.2944@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
>
|||I would highly recommend you avoid a two node configuration. It always
sounds like a good idea and it's main motivator is to maximize the
hardware investment, though it may work initially, it rarely will
survive a failover. A three node cluster is the best hope for a real
HA/FO experience.
-nm
|||I would highly recommend you avoid a two node configuration. It always
sounds like a good idea and it's main motivator is to maximize the
hardware investment, though it may work initially, it rarely will
survive a failover. A three node cluster is the best hope for a real
HA/FO experience.
-nm
|||You have some good ideas, and some bad. I really don't see how a 40 user
company needs an HA solution. And if they truly do, why they would not be
willing to do it right?
Either make sure you have a good backup/restore solution and 4 hour vendor
hardware support. Or do that can create a 3 node cluster
Good luck in whatever you choose.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jedi" <sbalourdos@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2GK5e.1010$AQ6.398@.fe12.lga...
> Mike,
> It is completely understood however during normal uptime, each server will
> run on its respective node. All issues concerning memory starvation and
> other performance problems would occur during a failover event which would
> last about 24-36 hours maximum. Here are some other tactics I plan on
> implementing in order to make sure that everything runs as smooth as
> possible during a failover period:
> - I would bind the SQL Server to the second processor, Processor 1,
> (Processor 0 is the first Processor) If I'm correct, Exchange Server 2003
> is not capable of binding to a particular processor like SQL Server can.
> - I would limit SQL Server to a maximum of 1.5 GB of RAM (Please see my
> proposed configuration below. I plan on having 5GB of Physical RAM
> Available on each node.)
> - I would enable the /3GB Boot.ini switch on both nodes.
> - I would NOT enable the /PAE Boot.ini switch on any node.
> - Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Another argument I would like to make is Small Business Server 2000/2003
> which runs Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, Exchange Server 2003,
> plus a few other apps. Other than a limitation of licenses, are there any
> physical differences to the components? (Windows Server 2003, SQL Server
> 2000, and Exchange Server 2003 which is designed to have all three running
> on the same box) I couldn't find any documentation citing differences of
> the components compared to the separate full versions.
> By the way, My company has only 40 employees but our mail server and sql
> server are mission critical. A 3-node cluster will shoot our cluster
> hardware cost considerably higher.
> Thank you for your time.
>
> "Mike Rosado [MSFT]" <mikeros@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:l6FiZZ2OFHA.2944@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
>
