 | |
Active\Active\passive setup
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Active\Active\passive setup -
11-03-2008
, 08:26 PM
|
So you would Have 3 acrive nodes pushing hard and passive one for failover. "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: I would run it with one full node open for failover under normal operation. There is no good reason to restrict instances from nodes. -- Geoff N. Hiten Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant Microsoft SQL Server MVP "MeHer" <MeHer (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:7D93D3BC-194C-4FAA-8B35-28BD368A225C (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... Thanks Geoff, I wondering if I should set up 2 active passive nodes instead a 4 node system thats all active? "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: Yes, you can mix and match nodes and instances. Depending on your cluster setup, you could stack everything on one node. Not advisable, but possible. -- Geoff N. Hiten Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant Microsoft SQL Server MVP "MeHer" <MeHer (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C0116A2-1627-400F-821E-58DF768ACC8C (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... Ok yeah I stated it wrong. I have four nodes and have 6 instances of SQL and trying to figure out best architecture. 4 main instances have a heavy load job nightly thats about it and the 2 of other instances are pretty quite. Thanks "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: Once again, obsolete nomenclature gives the wrong impression. Active/Active/Passive is a meaningless definition. What you can build is a four-node, three instance cluster. Nodes are host platforms. Instances are the actual SQL Servers that use a host to execute. If a host fails, the instance fails over to another server. You cna choose which instance normally runs on which node, but SQL clustering is "shared nothing". That means that instances and nodes are completely independent of each other. You can also choose which nodes can host which instances. So what you ask is outside the definition of SQL clustering, but you can build a system that does what you want. You end up with three separate SQL Server instances that can run on any of four nodes. -- Geoff N. Hiten Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant Microsoft SQL Server MVP "MeHer" <MeHer (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:AFCE6F04-5917-486C-9331-74216D4A421A (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... I have 4 nodes that have tons of memmory and I wanted to get opinions for SQL 2005 clustering. I visualize the following and wonder if its possible Server1 and Server2 have there own instances and they are Active Active and Server1 and Server2 have another set of instances and they are Active/passive and the same for Server 3 and Server4 is this possile? |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.