Hi,
I am in the process of building a SQL Server "farm," but having to tone down
the pace due to $$. I have just purchased a RAID1 (2 disc/10K rpm/146 GB)
Channel 0, RAID5 (3 disc/10K rpm/146 GB) Channel 1 server with 2 CPU's. This
summer, I plan to buy an identical machine. They will both run Win 2003 EE,
with SQL Server 2000 EE. Rather than install SQL Server locally on my
existing machine, is there a problem with installing MSCS and a virtual
server, even though I only have the one machine now. Of course, it won't
give me failover protection, but it would give me the configuration I want
when I get my second box. Does this make any sense? Any caveats or words of
wisdom?

PS. The servers will be accessed in OTLP mode by an ADO.NET app running on
Terminal Server (Win 2003), and BizTalk Server 2004 - also on a Win 2003 box.
Most of the ADO.NET traffic will occur during business hours, with BTS
getting busy after hours.

Thanks.
--
John

Hi

Why don't you rather build a single node cluster? Build a normal cluster
node, but not add another node. Once you have bought your other machine, add
it to the cluster.

Just be aware, it is very difficult to get the exact same hardware months
apart. If you are going to use clustering, make sure all the hardware is on
the Windows Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).

A cluster "on the cheap" will just cause you hassles later. I've seen enough
"lets do it with a s little as we can", and the cluster ends up with worse
uptime than a single machine.

Regards
Mike

"JT" wrote: