 | |
Questions about failover clustering
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Questions about failover clustering -
03-06-2008
, 06:29 AM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello all, I wish to ask two questions about failover (active/passive) SQL 2005 clustering, as some parts are vague about these matters from what I have read till now. As I am called to design an appliance of a failover clustering from scratch, I want first of all to ask about the server hardware. Can I use different hardware configurations for my clusters? My thoughts are about a 4 proc 32GB to be my main active configuration, and for a smaller one, 2 proc 32 GB server to be my failover. It is understandable for me that I will lose computing power at the time of the failover, but it is acceptable for this to happen until the hardware of my main node is repaired. The reason for this is, that it is difficult to explain the existance of a server that will do nothing (except from clustering) to the finance dept, eventhough there is the matter of security of the failover required. The articles I have read, do not forbid the use of different servers with different processors, however, they do recommend identical servers, and thus, I am a bit confused. The second question, is if I do need to put first the Windows 2003 in a cluster as well before the SQL clustering. From what I fathomed, there will be need of clustering resourses to be used, however, this does not mean Windows 2003 cluster, just clustering services, right? Thanks a lot! |
|
« 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.