Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup

#1

Hi

I'm a little confused how best to setup a new 2005 deployment. I'm
moving from a 2000 environment, which used Legato's AAM software to
support failover. The new environment will use MS clustering.

The 2000 setup has multiple instances on each node, and each instance
can run on 3 out of 4 of the 4-node setup. With MS, it looks like each
instance has to have it's own 'virtual server'. So, in this setup,
named instances seem a bit redundant, since you can name the virtual
server. EG Why use Server1\Inst1, Server2\Inst2, when
Server1\<default>, Server2\<default> is just as informative

So, my questions are: 1) is it good practice to use named instances in
a clustered setup;

and 2) what is the rationale behind restricting a virtual server to a
single instance

Thanks.

#2

You only get one default instance per cluster, not per virtual server.

Personally, I only use named instances to avoid name style confusion.

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

"steve" <stevester (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hi

I'm a little confused how best to setup a new 2005 deployment. I'm
moving from a 2000 environment, which used Legato's AAM software to
support failover. The new environment will use MS clustering.

The 2000 setup has multiple instances on each node, and each instance
can run on 3 out of 4 of the 4-node setup. With MS, it looks like each
instance has to have it's own 'virtual server'. So, in this setup,
named instances seem a bit redundant, since you can name the virtual
server. EG Why use Server1\Inst1, Server2\Inst2, when
Server1\<default>, Server2\<default> is just as informative

So, my questions are: 1) is it good practice to use named instances in
a clustered setup;

and 2) what is the rationale behind restricting a virtual server to a
single instance

Thanks.

#3

On 3 Dec, 14:23, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

You only get one default instance per cluster, not per virtual server.

Personally, I only use named instances to avoid name style confusion.

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

"steve" <steves... (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:e4c23b50-bc07-450c-94f7-b71ed051c4bc (AT) e67g2000hsc (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Hi

I'm a little confused how best to setup a new 2005 deployment. I'm
moving from a 2000 environment, which used Legato's AAM software to
support failover. The new environment will use MS clustering.

The 2000 setup has multiple instances on each node, and each instance
can run on 3 out of 4 of the 4-node setup. With MS, it looks like each
instance has to have it's own 'virtual server'. So, in this setup,
named instances seem a bit redundant, since you can name the virtual
server. EG Why use Server1\Inst1, Server2\Inst2, when
Server1\<default>, Server2\<default> is just as informative

So, my questions are: 1) is it good practice to use named instances in
a clustered setup;

and 2) what is the rationale behind restricting a virtual server to a
single instance

Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Geoff. So I can't use deafult instances with each additional
virtual server.

I'm still puzzled why you can only have one instance per virtual
server tho. - seems overly restrictive.

#4

It has to do with how SQL organizes binaries for different instances. Or
mor accurately, how multiple instances were handled in SQL 2000.

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

"steve" <stevester (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On 3 Dec, 14:23, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
You only get one default instance per cluster, not per virtual server.

Personally, I only use named instances to avoid name style confusion.

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

"steve" <steves... (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:e4c23b50-bc07-450c-94f7-b71ed051c4bc (AT) e67g2000hsc (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Hi

I'm a little confused how best to setup a new 2005 deployment. I'm
moving from a 2000 environment, which used Legato's AAM software to
support failover. The new environment will use MS clustering.

The 2000 setup has multiple instances on each node, and each instance
can run on 3 out of 4 of the 4-node setup. With MS, it looks like each
instance has to have it's own 'virtual server'. So, in this setup,
named instances seem a bit redundant, since you can name the virtual
server. EG Why use Server1\Inst1, Server2\Inst2, when
Server1\<default>, Server2\<default> is just as informative

So, my questions are: 1) is it good practice to use named instances in
a clustered setup;

and 2) what is the rationale behind restricting a virtual server to a
single instance

Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Geoff. So I can't use deafult instances with each additional
virtual server.

I'm still puzzled why you can only have one instance per virtual
server tho. - seems overly restrictive.

#5

"steve" <stevester (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

The 2000 setup has multiple instances on each node, and each instance
can run on 3 out of 4 of the 4-node setup. With MS, it looks like each
instance has to have it's own 'virtual server'. So, in this setup,
named instances seem a bit redundant, since you can name the virtual
server. EG Why use Server1\Inst1, Server2\Inst2, when
Server1\<default>, Server2\<default> is just as informative

Each virtual server must be an instance. You can only have one default
instance per cluster and the rest have to be named instances.

Quote:

So, my questions are: 1) is it good practice to use named instances in
a clustered setup;

You should only used named instances in a cluster. There are some known
issues around patching that can cause problems, for example, if you service
pack a named instance before the default.

Quote:

and 2) what is the rationale behind restricting a virtual server to a
single instance

Each instance requires its own resources, thus, each requires its own
virtual server.

--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver

#6

Thanks for your answers - very helpful.
Steve

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering

Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-03-2007 , 07:35 AM

Re: Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-03-2007 , 08:23 AM

Re: Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-03-2007 , 08:35 AM

Re: Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-03-2007 , 09:23 AM

Re: Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-03-2007 , 10:40 AM

Re: Clustering with W2K3 and SQL 2005 (64bit) - best practice setup - 12-04-2007 , 04:01 AM