Re: Change from Active\Active to Active\Passive Cluster

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) (mike_at_epprecht.net)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:46:43 +0100

Hi

No, Same collation. For us, multi-instances are there for security (bank),
to keep everyone away from each other.
It also makes it easier to add more nodes if we need to, so we then move the
instances around.

Once you start to have more than 2 busy instances, you better have a decent
SAN (EMC, biiiig EMC's) that can sustain the throughput. Multi fiber cards,
multi paths etc.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike@epprecht.net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Todd" <Todd@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23520408-C115-496C-9D33-A5313C3424C2@microsoft.com...
> I agree Mike. At work we use all active/passive clusters (4 total
clusters
> with 2 nodes in each) and run only a single instance on each active node.
We
> are doing a mass db consolidation project now and will likely go the path
of
> a multinode cluster as that will best suit our business needs.
> Do you run different coalition settings on your 4-6 instances per node?
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > No, but the decision must be based on business requirements.
> > If you need 2 instances of SQL Server, run them.
> >
> > At work, we use put 4-6 instances per node on a SQL Cluster (= 8-12 per
2
> > node cluster). Our perspective is that having one machine do nothing is
a
> > waste of space and energy.
> >
> > Single Instance (Active/Passive), from a licensing perspective is
cheaper,
> > you only need to license the single node as the other node is DR and is
not
> > active.
> >
> > Regards
> > --------------------------------
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "Todd" <Todd@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:90355A4B-87CE-4B14-8C2C-AC0D909D1981@microsoft.com...
> > > Mike - Are you recommending not to run an active/passive cluster
config?
> > >
> > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Active/Active vs Active/Passive in SQL server tems is not correct.
> > > >
> > > > Active/Active = 2 SQL Server instances, one running on each node.
> > > > Active/Passive = 1 SQL Server instance, running on a Node, with the
> > other
> > > > node doing nothing but waiting for a failover.
> > > >
> > > > Uninstall one SQL server instance and you have what you want. Any
reason
> > you
> > > > want to do this?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > "Joe K." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a SQL Server 2000 Cluster with Windows 2000 Server.
> > > > > The Cluster was set up as a Active\Active and I would like to
change
> > it to
> > > > > Active\Passive.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do I need to change go from Active\Active to Active\Passive?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >

Relevant Pages