RE: New SQL 2005 Cluster Questions
- From: Linchi Shea <LinchiShea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:24:02 -0700
And even this would be an active/passive design. Does that sound aboutright?
You have only one SQL instance in the cluster. At any given time, only one
node would being running the SQL instance and have access to the database,
thus 'active' and the other node can be considered 'passive' or in a standby
mode. So in this sense, you are right it's active/passive.
Linchi
"KooZee" wrote:
I guess that is what I am looking for. It doesn't matter to me if I have SQL.
installed on both servers and if they are clustered (although this looks more
like what I need to do) as long as either server (SQL) can use the DB which
will be on the common array.
As for to much on one box, not my choice. This is a common app so the IIS
is just there to answer HTTP requests (it could be any webserver for that
matter).
So, from what I am seeing is I have no choice but to DC the servers, cluster
Win2003 Ent and then install SQL 2005 Ent onto this cluster. And even this
would be an active/passive design. Does that sound about right?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
If I read you correctly, you want to have a single SQL 2005 instance on this
two-node cluster, and install IIS on each of the two servers as well. I'd be
wary of running the clustered SQL2005 instance with those IIS on the same
machines. You can make it work. But personally, I'd never architect my
infrastructure that way because of supportability issues.
It is true that installing SQL Server on a DC is not recommended. But then
if you only have two servers in a domain, you have no choice but install DC
there.
Linchi
"KooZee" wrote:
After reading Win2003 Ent & SQL 2005 Clustering, I think I am more confused
than ever. Here is my scenario and I am trying to find the best layout to
minimize (or eliminate) outages.
Two identical servers attached to a common fiber channel array. The disk
array is mounted on both servers. Win2003 Ent is installed but the servers
are setup as a workgroup not a domain. There are no other servers in this
environment.
There is a front-end SSL/load-balance appliance that performs load-balancing
for the IIS servers on each server.
So, I have read that in order to have Win2003 Clustering that I need a
domain. Which means I would need to have each server a DC. But then I read
that SQL 2005 is not recommended on a cluster that is the DC.
So, what I REALLY want is to have an active/active environment where either
IIS/SQL server can answer requests as use the common DB on the disk array.
Is this a pipe dream? And if it is, what is the closest I can get to with
this arrangement?
Thanks.
- Prev by Date: Re: Install only Enterpeise Manager
- Next by Date: Re: SQL2K 32bit & SQL2005 x64 same Cluster
- Previous by thread: Re: Install only Enterpeise Manager
- Next by thread: Re: New SQL 2005 Cluster Questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
