Cluster 3 nodes

#1

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#2

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#3

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#4

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#5

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#6

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#7

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#8

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#9

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005

#10

You specify a preferred host order for each resource group (instance).

Failover is automatic, otherwise it is a low-availability solution.

Multi-site clustering is a whole different ballgame. There is no native
capability in SQL 2005 to support that but there are several storage-vendor
solutions on the market. You might look at database mirroring without
automatic failover for this type if solution as long as the database count
is not too high.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Pablo Garateguy" <PabloGarateguy (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:597F70AE-79CC-48D0-8407-50AC12E199C6 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

Quote:

Hi,

I tested a failover cluster solution with Windows 2003 and SQL Server 2005
using 2 nodes with optimal result. Now I'm interested to add a third node
and see what happens, but before that I have some questions.

1 - How nodes will work in case of failover?, will use a round robin
schema?, a random schema?, or always node 1 will failover to node 2 and
only
if this is down will failover to node 3.

2 - There's any option to create a cluster where only two nodes will
failover automatically and the third manually?, we're thinking on this
option
to have a node remote and only put online if local cluster is unavailable.
In this schema we'll only use the virtual sql name capability of cluster
and
not the failover automatically.

3 - More generally, I think that when enough resources is better to have
more instances of SQL in the same machine for differents applications than
to
have only one instance with several databases, I'm thinking in HA when one
of
the applications generate that SQL Server use a lot of SQL cycles, a lot
of
memory or the tempdb heavily. What do you think?

Thx,

--
Pablo Garateguy
MCP - Visual Basic 6
MCTS - SQL Server 2005