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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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