Hi,

we have 4 identical nodes each with 1TB RAID10 drive. Accessing a
quorum over Fibre Channels is also possible

We want the best mix of performance and data safety.

I'm not sure if I should create

2 two node active/passive cluster and set up a load balancing

or

set up all 4 nodes as a multi node cluster and run 2 SQL Server
Groups on it.

or

just set it up as on multi node cluster with the SQL Server over all
nodes.

There is also one thing to think about. It should be possible to
either to move a part of the cluster or add some nodes in an other
computer center which is connected by 1Gbit Ethernet.

Regards,

Michael

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote:

2 Node Active/Passive Cluster:
- Simple, easy to setup (relatively)
- No need to worry about multi-failovers.

4 Nodes Multi-node, 2 Active Instances
- I think if you are going to have 2 active and 2 passive might as well
stick with option #1.

Multi-node, multi-instance configuration
- Complicated; now you have to take into account the affects of all nodes
failing over to one node and the performace issues that come with it.

Few notes:
- SQL Server Clustering, is Fail-Over clustering not Load Balancing; you can
achive Load Balancing by means of Replication.
- The Cluster nodes; share the disks that are configured for SQL Server and
the Quorum (SAN/NAS).
- In a multi-node configuraiton you might want to consider doing disk mounts
instead of dirve letters for all the hard-drives.

Thanks.

--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
http://sqllearnings.blogspot.com/


"Michael Kugler" wrote: