Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: "Kevin3NF" <KHill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:17:35 -0500
If you run Active/Active, in the ideal situation you limit the RAM used by
each instance so that in a failover, both (or all three) has avaialble RAM
on its new node to function.
Size and memory requirements would dictate for me what approach to take.
Other opinions may vary...
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"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
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Next by Date: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Previous by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Next by thread: Unable to create physical disk for MSDTC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
