 | |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
RE: sql 2005 active/passive cluster options -
04-01-2008
, 09:29 AM
|
Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! |
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#45
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#48
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
#50
| |||
| |||
|
|
tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with their product is an active/passive sql cluster. Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach. SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g. by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't think that'll help much. Thanks! I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for creating a cluster. I found these guides very helpful: http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2003_p1.aspx http://www.sql-server-performance.co...r_2005_p1.aspx It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some recommendations. The system I built was: 2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon quad-core processors 2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat) Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U) 16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece. The S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack enclosures. You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm using a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in the cluster. Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's compatibility list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes. |
 |
« 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.