Multiple-Instance Cluster

#11

If you are talking about a single application, perhaps you should clarify
why you are even considering two separate clusters or two separate instances
at all. Why are you not even considering a single instance cluster? It would
be a lot easier to manage.

--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea (AT) NOSPAMml (DOT) com

"ash" <anonymous (AT) discussions (DOT) rr.com> wrote

Quote:

We are looking at having a multi-instance cluster for an
application instead of having 2 clusters for one
application. First I need any information on why we
should go with one cluster with multi-instance instead of
two clusters each with one instance. Also one of the
clusters is already setup and is in testing now. As I
understand it we would need different drives for the data
and logs. Both instances can not reside on the same
drive. Also I understand that all I will have to do is to
install another instance of SQL Server on the cluster
inorder to make this a multi-instance cluster. Any
informaiton on this subject would be very helpful.

#12

I agree, the Single / Multi-instance is more confusing all around.

--

Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP

"Linchi Shea" <linchi_shea (AT) NOSPAMml (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

That change in terminology hasn't really gotten across in practice even in
the DBA community, let alone in the IT management circle. I used to fight
the use of 'Active/Active' or 'Active/Passive.' But then I realized that
the
terminology is so pervasive in everyday conversation regarding failover
clusters that resistance is futile. Besides, it does succinctly summarizes
how the nodes are being utilized. The term 'multiple instance cluster'
doesn't convey any information on the node usage.

--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea (AT) NOSPAMml (DOT) com

"Allan Hirt" <allanh (AT) NOSPAMavanade (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:000f01c3cbdc$0c7936e0$a501280a (AT) phx (DOT) gbl...
The terminology is not active/active anymore; it was
changed post-SQL 2K release by MS. It was changed to
multiple instance cluster, as that is what it is.
Active/active stems from SQL 7 because you could have at
most 2 active SQL Servers. With SQL 2K, it's up to 16.
-----Original Message-----
Yep. That's Active/Active.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------------
-----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql

"ash" <anonymous (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in
message
news:023901c3c994$1d79a500$a301280a (AT) phx (DOT) gbl...
What my goal is to lessen the amount of servers we have on
our floor. First the server one server is already in
use. Lets say the sql server name is server1 and now what
I want to do, if possible, is install another sql server
named server2. There for I have two instances of sql
server running. One will be running on physical node one
and the other instance will be running on physical node
two. But if I understand correctly both will have
different vitrual names. Both can fail over to the other
node and both and live on the same node at the same time.
Is this what Active/Active is? Thanks for all your help
and time.

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

Multiple-Instance Cluster

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

Re: Multiple-Instance Cluster - 12-26-2003 , 11:01 PM

Re: Multiple-Instance Cluster - 12-27-2003 , 03:58 PM