Best Configuration for a 3 Node SQL 2000 Cluster on Windows 2003?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Ok, I've got the cluster setup and running, but having never done this,
I'm not sure if I'm setting up SQL right... We're trying to migrate
our multitude of SQL Server running on older hardware to the new
cluster, but I want to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.
Here is what we've got:

Specs:
3 HP BL20P Blade Server (Twin 3.6GHz Xeon, 4GB Ram)
1 HP MSA1000 w/ Twin Fibre Switches (Dual Path Redundancy)

Current Setup:
Windows 2003 Enterprise, 20GB C:, 10GB D: (Pagefile), 37GB E: Data
MSA1000 is currently configured with 4 36GB Arrays (Quorum, 2 for Trans
Logs, and 1 for Backups) and 2 120GB Arrays (Database Data), but there
is about 1.2TB left on the controller for additional space.

Followed all the instructions, Public IPs, Private IPs, etc...

Installed SQL on the first two nodes (SQLCL01 & SQLCL02) and have two
Virtual Servers (Same name, actual server name is longer and unique),
and then two instances, INST1 on SQLCL01, and INST2 on SQLCL02.
SQLCL03 is the failover server which of course is identical to the
first two. We're never expecting to have 2 fail, but we may add a 4th
Server/Node in the future (we have 5 additional slots in our two Blade
Chassis).

>>From what I've read you "can" install up to 16 instances into a single
cluster, but obviously I don't know if #1 I should try and install more
than 2 instances, or #2 if I even can. I've tried rerunning the SQL
Setup just to see, and all it lets me do it "modify" the current
install or remove it, it won't let me add another instance.

So... What am I looking at here? Is this the optimum configuration
for now, or can I do more? What about memory? Should I limit each SQL
Server instance to a certain level of RAM, say 3GB? Or possibly 2GB,
incase both the two main servers ever fail and everything gets forced
to the 3rd? These servers will pretty much only be used for SQL,
nothing else, so there isnt' too much worry about applications battling
for memory.

Thanks in advance. I know some of these questions may seem rather
newbish, but I've installed and administered SQL2k before, but never a
cluster... so this is new ground for me and the documentation out
there is not very helpful, most of it refers to SQL2k on Windows 2000,
not Windows Server 2003.

Jon Casimir

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: N+1 Configuration
    ... Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP) ... But looking in the cluster admin tool, ... mounting all other drives under that drive ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... I have worked with Windows 2003 Small Business Server, Exchange Server 2003 and 2000 SQL server but not in a clustered environment. ... Do you want to cluster SQL? ... > you cannot install Cluster on a Small Business Edition, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... The SQL Cluster would need to be ... SQL will need to Enterprise as well. ... So if I understand you correctly one computer will need Windows Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Issues creating a new failover cluster on the same server
    ... G:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1 ... CHNSQL04 Cluster Group ... Drives: H and F ... Group, the MS DTC Group, and each of the SQL Server Instance Groups running ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Connecting to cluster instance from .NET
    ... I have tried using the SQL 2000 CD and i have ... Virtual IP addresses for the cluster resource groups. ... SQL Server will listen on only those IP addresses ... This is odd because the 172.16 network is a Class B ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)