Re: Question on SQL Cluster Resource Groups



You have a couple of options, and I'm sure different people may have
different opinions w.r.t. their pros and cons.

Option 1:
Move the resources from group 1 into the second group, and edit the
dependencies property of your virtual server to include the disk resources
you mentioned. In order to protect the HA of your SQL Server instance, you
may want to edit the advanced property tab of the resources--moved over from
group 1--so that their faulire doesn't affect the group.

Option 2:
Keep the groups as they are. Create a file share resource(s) in group 2, and
use the file share via the virtual server. I don't know the nature of your
particular virtual server, so I'm not sure this works for you.

Personally, I prefer to keep the SQL Server group clean, and will try very
hard to question any attempt to include additional resources in that group.
However, in your situation you already have a bunch of non-SQL Server native
resources in the SQL group so adding a few more may not do a great deal more
potential harm (of course that all depends on the details of the virtual
server in question.)

Linchi

"John - PDX" <JohnPDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D5396113-A4A6-4EA3-973F-B4CBF2021CDB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I have a sql cluster with my virtual server name, IP address, etc. in one
> group. In the other group I have my sql instance, san attached disk
> resources, sql agent etc. In this second group I also have a ftp server
> that
> utilizes the vbscript for fail over and uses a san disk resource.
>
> The problem I have is if the second group fails over say, due to a sql
> server error which has happened, then my ftp site dies as users put to the
> ftp site via the name / ip of the virtual server but then the virtual
> server
> cannot see the disk resources that are part of the second group.
>
> Is there any issues with putting the virtual server name & ip address in
> the
> same group with sql, sql agent, disk resources, etc.? In essence, putting
> everything in one group.
> --
> Thanks in advance,
> John


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cant get SQL 2000 installed on new node in Cluster
    ... You can apply a service pack to a new node without taking the Virtual SQL ... server offline. ... When the install is asking for a virtual server name, ... So which of the two virtual server names do we use: the one for the MSCS cluster or the one for the SQL cluster? ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: SQL 2000 on Windows 2003 cluster - URGENT HELP
    ... You won't be able to ping the virtual server until after you apply SP3a. ... Microsoft SQL Server MVP ... > for resources needed but SQL server resource shows failed. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Can a SQL "virtual server" contains more than one SQL instance ?
    ... SQL Server 2000 can support up to 16 instances on a single physical node. ... If someone was talking about an "active/active" SQL cluster I would interpret that as meaning there are 1 or more instances running on each node of a 2-node cluster simultaneously. ... You are correct in saying that a virtual server always corresponds with a single SQL instance but there's nothing from stopping you having many virtual servers on a single MSCS Windows cluster (up to 16, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Active/Passes Instances on a Single Virtual Server
    ... You can install SQL Server on a single-node cluster. ... > single virtual server (i.e not create a new SQL instance ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Migrating stand-alone SQL server to cluster
    ... So now I have one virtual server with 2 ... SQL IP address objects assigned to it. ... This will reinstall SQL Server on the new cluster ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)

Loading