Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:16:10 -0400
A multi-instance cluster would be the correct solution. You can run each
instance on its own host node during normal operating conditions. During a
failover event, you would host multiple SQL instances on a single node. I
would purchase a fourth node and have a 3-instance, 4-node cluster. That
way, any single node failure will cause the failed instance to move to the
empty node. This requires a bit of configuration work, but is well within
the capabilities of SQL Server. I have built and operated just such a
cluster in the past with a high degree of success.
A SAN is a required element for a cluster with more than two nodes.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"rui" <rui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3F786FD2-AFE4-4F6C-A1A4-71C005C68977@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
>
> I have 3 databases on 3 seperate SQL 2000 servers, all are used heavily.
> There is no high availablity solution.
>
> I was thinking of placing the databases in Windows 2003 Cluster. If I do
> that, in terms of performance shouldn't I use an active\active
> configuration
> (i think it's called multi-instance nowadays). What I am trying to say is
> that each server in the cluster will maintain its own database.
>
> Wouldn't I need a beefed up server to put all databases on a single node
> in
> an active\passive cluster.
>
> I also have use of a SAN
>
> Thanks
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it possible to install the third instance?
- Next by Date: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is it possible to install the third instance?
- Next by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
