sql 2005 active/passive cluster

#31

More spindles is going to help. Unless you hav a good idea of the current
requirements for IO, I wouldn't be able to even guess whether 2 or 20
spindles is correct.

Running SQL and virtualization on the same host hardware is not a good idea
unless your SQL system has very low performance and availability
requirements.

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

<tagtagboys (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On May 22, 1:37 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

It depends.

Look at your existing I/O load and storage capacity requirements. Realize
that RAID5 will be anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the speed of a comparably
sized
RAID1+0 array. With four drives, you don't have a lot of choice,
especially
siince you need a minimum of three LUNS spread acros two physical arrays
unless you want SQL Logs and Data on the same physical disks (bad idea). I
think more disks may be in order, just to get the spindle count up.

I do agree on the SQL and Windows version choices but give yourself some
time to get used to WIndows 2008, especially in clustering.

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

tagtagb... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:f2bb9ca2-a6ab-4bce-b7c8-b616d2323f10 (AT) c19g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Was able to persuade management to purchase the equipment (listed
below) for 2-node cluster and SAN.

2 x Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers with 4GB ram and dual 2.50Ghz xeon
quad-core processors
Dell PowerVault MD3000i with 4x 300GB SAS drives
24-port Dell gigabit switch

Both servers have two built-in NIC's and also got 2 extra NICs for
heartbeat. More ram can be added at later stage. With configuration,
I'm planning at installing SQL 2005 Standard 64-bit and Windows 2008
Enterprise 64-bit unless someone thinks it's a bad idea. What would be
an ideal configuration (based on my hardware) in terms of RAID & disk/
luns? Don't really want to use the new hardware just for SQL i.e.
looking at using virtualization for server consolidation purposes if
possible but this is something I'll need to investigate at a later
time.

Thanks for you help

My budget is pretty much at max point - would adding two more disks
making a total of 6 be sufficient to run RAID 10? SQL storage
requirements is not huge as are I/O load, and yes I'd want the logs
seperate from the data.

Besides the SQL cluster I would also want to use the equipment for
server consolidation using virtualization under Windows 2008 Ent,
hence the reason I was thinking of using that OS version.

Thanks

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

sql 2005 active/passive cluster

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering

Re: sql 2005 active/passive cluster - 05-22-2008 , 08:25 AM