Re: Clustering with 2 active nodes and 1 passive node

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Hi

You don't need a 1:1 relationship between nodes.
And forget the terms active / passive, it is totally out of date and does
not describe SQL Server 2000/2005 clustering.

You have an instance of SQL Server running on an node.
If you have 2 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes at any one time. If
you had 3 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes, at any one time.
If you have 2 nodes, one sits around waiting for a failover. If you have 3
nodes, 2 sit around waiting for a failover.

If you have more than one SQL Server instance running on the cluster, then
the instances can run on any of the nodes.
The instances could be all running on the same node, or dispersed over the
various nodes.

Quite often, people run with 3 nodes and 2 instances or 4 nodes with 3
instances. There is nothing stopping you running 3 instances on 3 nodes, 4
instances on 4 nodes, or any combination of up to 16 instances over 4 nodes.
You just need to make sure that you have enough resources, that in worst
case, one node could run all instances.

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

IM: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

"Michael G via SQLMonster.com" <forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:541CE6C54F90F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Normally, clustering is setup as a 1-to-1 relationship between active and
> passive nodes, at least that is my understanding. We have a situation
> where
> we are being asked to setup a 2 active node, 1 passive node environment.
> Here's the question - if one of the active nodes fails, it fails over to
> the
> passive node. Now what happens if the 2nd active node fails? Will the
> other
> active node (originally the passive node) handle the failover or will it
> try
> to failover to the first active node that failed or will the whole thing
> just
> grind to a screeching halt? I know we can setup a 2 active/ 2passive node
> setup, but we wanted to research the 2-to-1 possibility as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Installation
    ... To run Unattended SQL Server setup at Command Prompt, ... How to record an unattended installation file ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • RE: Problems upgrading SQL MSDE for Sharepoint
    ... Please try the following steps and then run the SQL Server 2000 setup again: ... Can we install SQL Server successfully at this time? ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Clustering with 2 active nodes and 1 passive node
    ... Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP ... >> If you have 2 nodes, one sits around waiting for a failover. ... >>> we are being asked to setup a 2 active node, 1 passive node environment. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: High Availability
    ... also does failover. ... Async replication is real-time, as opposed to the scheduled Log Shipping ... > Note that one of the considerations for the active/passive GEO Cluster is ... > SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: setupsql.exe hangs. Cannot Install SQL server 2K
    ... Q. When I run the SQL Server 2000 setup, ... Q. What should I do if the installation of SQL Server 2000 is unsuccessful? ... Access Components (MDAC) setup, which is launched as part of the SQL Server ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)