 | |
Newbie in Clustering
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Newbie in Clustering -
07-19-2008
, 09:51 PM
|
The goal is to use the two available server (my cluster nodes) and to distribute the dbs on two different SQL Server instance. In order to do it I think to use a multiple instance cluster (a/a) with two nodes, Node1 (or Server1) and Node2 (or Server2). I will execute the install of an instance on an initial node (for example Node1) and then I will decide which the node runs the instance installed and then I will setup the second instance that shall run on the other node (in this case Node2), isn't it? Thanks "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: I think you misunderstand. You do not install an instance on a node. You install the instance to a cluster. You can choose which node an instance runs on right now, but instances must be able to failover to another node to maintain high availability. If you have two nodes and two instances, be sure any one node can support all the instances at once, otherwise you don't have a highly available solution. You can run odd numbers in a cluster where you have two instances and three nodes. You can intentionally "stack" instances on nodes of you want, you just have to make some decisions about memory and CPU resource allocation. -- Geoff N. Hiten Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant Microsoft SQL Server MVP "Pasquale" <Pasquale (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message news:76E8F1BA-5CED-4383-B786-568D69684589 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com... I consider the simplest option: for example, I install one SQL instance on the first server and no one on the second server. The first server is the first node and the second server is the second node for the unique cluster; the SQL instance contains all three dbs, isn'it? Now, I try to consider a performance problem. The first two dbs will be used from more 600 cuncurrent users. In order to implement a two-node cluster for each instance, I must one SQL instance on the first server and one SQL instance on the second server. Each instance has all three dbs. The first cluster has the first server as the first node and the second server as the second node; the second cluster has the second server as the first node and the first server as the second node, isn'it? Many thanks "Linchi Shea" wrote: You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no need for the other two instances. If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance. If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster. If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance. Linchi "Pasquale" wrote: I have two servers. On the first server I want to put two dbs and on to the second second server I want to put the third db. The dbs on the first server will be queried from 600 users. The high performance is an important goal, and the high data availability, also. I think to install two SQL Server instances on the first server and other two SQL Server instances on the second server. On the first SQL instance of the first server I want to put the first two dbs and on the second SQL instance the third db. In the same manner, I want to use the SQL instances in the second server. Is it correct? Now, do I create a cluster with two nodes or two cluster with two nodes, in respect with performance and availability? Thanks |
|
« 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.