Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:38:45 -0500
It works well with the right vendor :) Again, if you want the best
performance.....SAN is the only way to go.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eetQ9MA0FHA.3256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I have heard of many horror stories with iSCSI implementations and none
>with successful, happy users. Pardon me if I find it difficult to
>recommend such a "solution". Just because it is supported and possible
>doesn't mean it is a good idea.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:%23ZxG95$zFHA.3152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Since SP1 for Windows Server 2003, iSCSI also supports more a multi-node
>> cluster, granted not as fast as a SAN, but cheaper :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rod
>>
>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
>> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>>
>>
>> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e%23orvh$zFHA.3720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>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: Geoff N. Hiten
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- References:
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: Geoff N. Hiten
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: Geoff N. Hiten
- Re: Type of Cluster?
- Prev by Date: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Next by Date: Re: Unable to create physical disk for MSDTC
- Previous by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Next by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
