Service Packs with Clustering

#1

I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed out
that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and once
that is done put the original configuration back.

With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
seconds for service pack applications??

#2

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
been since SQL 7.0.

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

"CLM" <CLM (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:

I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
out
that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
once
that is done put the original configuration back.

With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
seconds for service pack applications??

#3

I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
interesting that they have very limited "apologetics" to explain why...

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Quote:

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
been since SQL 7.0.

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

"CLM" <CLM (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43DD933A-04CE-445A-81C8-3FC194E14D6A (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
out
that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
once
that is done put the original configuration back.

With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
seconds for service pack applications??

#4

Quote:

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
been since SQL 7.0.

Give up, Geoff! That nomenclature will persist!

Linchi

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Quote:

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
been since SQL 7.0.

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

"CLM" <CLM (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43DD933A-04CE-445A-81C8-3FC194E14D6A (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
out
that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
once
that is done put the original configuration back.

With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
seconds for service pack applications??

#5

Quote:

I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
Chase Oracle for what???

Linchi

"CLM" wrote:

Quote:

I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
interesting that they have very limited "apologetics" to explain why...

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
been since SQL 7.0.

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

"CLM" <CLM (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43DD933A-04CE-445A-81C8-3FC194E14D6A (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
out
that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
once
that is done put the original configuration back.

With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
seconds for service pack applications??

#6

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire
instance down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service
pack/hotfix time requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror
switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and
haven't been since SQL 7.0.

I love that this is such a pet peeve for you. <G>

Personally, I don't think saying you have a multi instance cluster is very
descriptive either.

If you say that you have a three node, two instance, Active/Active/Passive
cluster, that really makes it clear what it is.

--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver

#7

What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster? ;-)

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ (AT) clusterhelp (DOT) com> wrote

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire
instance down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service
pack/hotfix time requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror
switchover.

And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and
haven't been since SQL 7.0.

I love that this is such a pet peeve for you. <G>

Personally, I don't think saying you have a multi instance cluster is very
descriptive either.

If you say that you have a three node, two instance, Active/Active/Passive
cluster, that really makes it clear what it is.

--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver

#8

"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote

Quote:

What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster? ;-)

Is it Active/Passive? <G>

#9

<Thwack>

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

"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ (AT) clusterhelp (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:e$7wAuhMIHA.5400 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP04 (DOT) phx.gbl...
What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster? ;-)

Is it Active/Passive? <G

#10

Quote:

What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster? ;-)

If the instances are all configured to run on one node in their 'steady
state' and the other node is left for standby, it's active/passive. If some
instances are configured to run on one node and the other instance(s) is
configured to run on the other node, I'd just spell it out, for instance:

Active/Passive, Active/Passive, and Passive/Active corresponding to the
following:

Instance Node1 Node2
---------- --------- ---------
Instance1 active passive
Instance2 active passive
Instance3 passive active

Personally, I think this is intuitive and complete.

Linchi

"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:

Quote:

"Tom Moreau" <tom (AT) dont (DOT) spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:e$7wAuhMIHA.5400 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP04 (DOT) phx.gbl...
What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster? ;-)

Is it Active/Passive? <G