Re: Type of Cluster?
- From: "Linchi Shea" <linchi_shea@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:27:02 -0400
There seem to be so many different stories with iSCSI in a Windows cluster.
Some real good and some real bad. Like always, until you test it out
yourself you don't know who to believe. We were going to experiment with it.
But that didn't go anywhere, and I'm not complaining.
Linchi
"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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- 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: Unable to create physical disk for MSDTC
- Next by Date: Re: about another instance of virtual server on sql2000 cluster
- Previous by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Next by thread: Re: Type of Cluster?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
