Re: Can You Have A Three Way Cluster With Mixed SQL Versions?
- From: "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:50:17 -0600
There are two fundamental configurations for multi-node clusters, although
they may be hybridized as one see fit.
N + I defines N active nodes with I inactive nodes. This is basically a
scaled out version of the archaic Active/Passive configuration, but makes
better use of resources than N two-node clusters. Each active node is
paired up with an inactive node as a potential failover owner. Each active
node is built to support the load of the intended installations. For the
inactive nodes, the size and number of them are determined by risk analysis,
and the probability of impact.
One could provide a dedicated inactive node for each active one, but instead
of managing N clustered two-node pairs, we would have N two-node pairs
administrated through a single clustered installation, viz. only 1 cluster
IP, network name, and quorum.
A more reasonable configuration, would be to use fewer larger hosts for the
inactive nodes, built large enough to support concurrent failover of
multiple active nodes. Something like a 2 x 1, 3 x 1, 4 x 2, 6 x 3, 6 x 2,
8 x 4, or 8 x 2, which you will notice, provides for an increasing scale-out
balance for 2 to 1, 3 to 1, and 4 to 1 ratios.
You must also keep in mind, however, that SS2K 32-bit versions only support
up to 4-way clustered configurations, even though Win2K3 EE supports up to
8-ways.
If you want to install larger configured systems, you will have to consider
SS2K for IA64 (code named Liberty) or SS2K5 EE.
The next configuration is considered a Round-Robin type, with from equal
Active and Inactive nodes up to all Active, with each node designated as the
failover candidate for the next node in a circular fashion.
For simplicity, consider a 4-node cluster with 3 active nodes. Nodes 1 and
2 are paired, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and, finally, 4 and 1. Begin with nodes 1,
2, and 3 active, node 4 inactive. In the event of failure, say, node 1,
resources from 1 would failover to node 2, and may be hardware limited. An
administrator, if alerted, may then determine to manually move node 2
resources to node 3, and node 3 resources to 4, while node 1 is repaired, or
simply allow node 2 to temporarily support both node 1 and 2 resources while
node 1 is fixed.
Window Server 2003 has made considerable enhancements directed at multi-node
installations.
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Windows 2000 Clustering Technologies: Cluster Service Architecture
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/deploy/confeat/clustsrv.mspx
Server Clusters : Architecture Overview
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/a/4/0a4db63c-0488-46e3-8add-28a3c0648855/ServerClustersArchitecture.doc
Cluster Architecture Essentials
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/42ba8090-cbb8-4e90-ad7f-bc09d956bdac1033.mspx?mfr=true
Server cluster Architecture
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/b6d5085d-dd23-44b9-bcec-359f0084ffe81033.mspx?mfr=true
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Val" <vmarz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23vxU7vZCHHA.4464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Can you have a 3 way server cluster with SQL 2000 on each server? I think
you can do this but how does the cluster manager know which of the two
remaining clusters to fail over to. Can you then upgrade only two of them
to SQL 2005?
Thanks,
Val
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Building high available and high performance web sites with MS
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for suggestions on specs
- Previous by thread: Re: Can You Have A Three Way Cluster With Mixed SQL Versions?
- Next by thread: Re: SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 instance on the same virtual server in a clu
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
