Re: Cluster licensing

#71

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#72

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#73

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#74

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#75

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#76

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#77

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#78

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#79

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

#80

I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..

does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.

Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..

thanks

"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:

Quote:

Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP02 (DOT) phx.gbl...
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.

I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
given time.

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

"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey (AT) snet (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
EdwinvMierlo (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote:

Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
keeps
on
trucking. That can't be done?

common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
nothnig"
cluster model,

Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT