 | |
Breaking a Sql Cluster
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Breaking a Sql Cluster -
03-03-2008
, 03:58 PM
|
Correct. So do you have only one clustered instance now or two? Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing here. By "local", I mean local only to a given node. You can have default or named instances on any node. However, you can have only one default instance within a cluster - local or virtual. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A1AF0D63-985E-43F3-9818-90D38013F6A1 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... We have one local and one named instance of SQL 2000 on the cluster at present. So you are telling me we could still do a local install to the passive node and then migrate the databases without evicting it from the cluster? "Tom Moreau" wrote: Ouch! High Availability and Low Budget are terms that should not be seen in the same sentence. If you are not going to have any extra SAN space, you could keep all 3 nodes and then do a *local* install of SQL 2005 on one node, and migrate DB's from one existing instance to it. You lose the HA, but you were gonna lose it anyway. Once all of the DB's in once instance have moved to it, then remove the old instance and install a *clustered* SQL 2005 instance on that same cluster. Detach the DB's from the local instance and, copy and move them to the clustered instance. Remove the local instance whenever you like. Now you have the HA and SQL 2005. You'll have to insure that the individual node has enough local disk capacity to receive the DB's that you want to shuffle over there. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9A48DA7E-91B2-4371-98B3-642E16FC0E2E (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... 2 reasons, First, we can't do an upgrade because we know some of the databases are not compatible with SQL 2005 so an inline upgrade won't work for us. Second, Microsoft recommended we create another cluster group and install along side the existing but we don't have the disk space on the existing SAN and we are currently in an extreme budget crunch right now so expanding is out of the question. So with no server money or SAN money we talked about breaking the cluster and doing a fresh SQL install on the new server once we took the passive node from the cluster. We should have Active/Passive and not active/active/passive after it's done, right? "Tom Moreau" wrote: Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there? -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A05DA0CB-60E8-4EB4-A2E3-7DF5A2CBF031 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will probably kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk about possibly building another cluster later. "Tom Moreau" wrote: A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone? Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability that you once had. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary constraints have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our databases might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node, make it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new server without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is evicted? |
#92
| |||
| |||
|
|
A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone? Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability that you once had. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary constraints have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our databases might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node, make it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new server without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is evicted? |
#93
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Tom, I found this chat and read your answers... I have another question for you...if i may... I have a windows 2003 cluster with SQL 2005 running active/passive. I need to break the cluster and then convert the active node to a VM machine running on vSphere 4.0 as a stand alone server. I need to convert it since there is a specific application on that server which we need to keep...and is very costly to get the vendor to reinstall it all again. We do not care about loosing the HA just want to break and convert successfully. many thanks DadiO "Tom Moreau" wrote: A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone? Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability that you once had. -- Tom ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS SQL Server MVP Toronto, ON Canada https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau "David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary constraints have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our databases might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node, make it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new server without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is evicted? |
|
« 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.