 | |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: SQL 2008 clustering with Windows 2008 -
10-01-2008
, 09:04 AM
|
Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean |
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer  atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff, Thank for the reply. As far as the quorum configuration, it seems SQL 2008 still has the same recommendation as SQL 2005's. If you know differently, please let me know. In our subsystem, we have three set of physical disks. One is for the database (raid 10), one is for the Tempdb (raid 1), and one is for the tran log (raid 1). Unfortunately, we don't have a separate set of physical disks for the quorum. Our database size is about 45 GB. Under performance counter SQLServer atabases - transaction per sec for our productiondatabase is 24/sec. The same counter for tempdb is about 235/sec. The read and write queue length counter for the log file drive is very low, < 0.01. Based on our disk setup, which set of physical disks is more preferable to be used for creating a logical disk for the quorum? Based on the IO activity from the performance monitor, the tran log disk has the least IO activity and it could be the set I should use. Please advice. Geoff N. Hiten wrote: Conceptually, clustering is the same. Microsoft did change the implementation a lot. Now, the wizard will determine whether your system can support clustering. Before your hardware had to be on the HCL (or the Windows Catalog for Clustering as it was renamed) and purchased/configured as a cluster. There are enough differences that I would do some serious reading before building a cluster, unless you have a lot of time for "do-overs". I am new to SQL clustering. Does SQL 2008 clustering as far as functionality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] Ocean -- Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com |
 |
« 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.