Re: setup custer - one node already in production

Yes, but you can replicate, or mirror, one database to another, even on the
same instance, although in that case, database snapshots would probably make
more sense.

Now, as far as saving money goes, there are a few got'chas that you should
consider.

First, in a single-instance configuration, you only have to license the
processors on the box with the largest number of cpu sockets. The passive
node, acting like a stand-by server, does not have to be licensed as long as
you use it only for failover support and maintenance for the primary node
(basically, Microsoft allows you to run operations on the passive node for
approximately 30 days, plenty of time to do maintenance or repairs on the
primary node).

Now, for multi-instanced installations, because you are running at least on
instance on both nodes, Microsoft requires you to license all processors.

In an N + I configuration, however, only the "active" nodes need to be
licensed. The inactive node is performing passive failover support. Now,
you can run all of the nodes symmetrically (that is, the same hardware, the
same number of cpu sockets); however, although the probability of
multi-server failure is lower than single-server, there is still a finite
probability. So, some installations beef-up the passive node to be able to
withstand multi-server failures. In this case, you have to license each
"active" node as if each of them had the same number of processors as the
passive, even if they have fewer.

For both Enterprise Edition and Data Center Edition for Windows 2003 you can
build up to 8-node clusters. Although you could configure a 7 x 1, most
configure 4 x 4 (which would be similar to 4 independent 2-node clusters), 5
x 3, or 6 x 2, with the 6 x 2 configuration most common. The difference
between a 4 x 4 and 4 2-node and 6 x 2 versus 2 3 x 1 clusters is that by
having multiple passive nodes allows you flexibility regarding failover
partners. For the independent, single passive node versions, you only get
one choice.

To run SQL Server 2000 x86 editions, unfortunately, you can only run on up
to 4-node cluster configurations. However, for Liberty (SS2K IA64) and
Yukon (SS2K5), 8-node cluster configurations are supported.

Lastly, because of the licensing costs between single-instanced and
multi-instanced, you would want to consider running everything on a single
node, again which reduces the system resource capacity for any single
instance, which gets you right back to the Active/Passive (or 1 x 1 N + I)
configuration. Furthermore, the VLDB Microsoft site has quite a few white
papers that indicate that multi-hosted databases on a single instance
outperforms a multi-instanced configuration (trying to save money utilizing
a single host to server multiple SQL Server installations). So,
single-instancing is still the better way to go.

So, N + I is the only practical way to reduce the passive server costs and
boot overall server utilization. There is also a Round-Robin configuration.
Where N + I is like a triangle, with all active nodes targeted to one or
more passive nodes in common, the Round-Robin configuration partners nodes
so that failover happens in a daisy-chain, circular fashion. Regardless of
the configuration, multi-node clusters are the way to reduce passive node
costs, not strictly Active-Active.

If you are willing to risk the reduced performance during failover
scenarios, then Active-Active could be viable solution, but you haven't
demonstrated that sort of need yet, unless you just like to spend money.

Sincerely,


Anthony Thomas





--

"Claudia" <Claudia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:85D24D05-32AC-40AB-A0A6-001B06CD4EB4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The current production node has replication setup. The second node to be
built will has its own replication setup with has nothing to do with the
first node.

Using active-active mode saves money - that's the only reason to go this
way.

Your suggestion of 2 x 1 N + I cluster configuration caught my interest.
Have you done this? I have experience with 2-node cluster, but know
nothing
about 2+ cluster. Currently trying to find info on this.

Claudia

"Anthony Thomas" wrote:

So, you are going to use replication and make the second instance a
reporting server? How do you plan on "fully using" the hardware?

Keep in mind, that either due to server failure or during maintenance,
you
will move all instances to a single host and will degrade performance if
you
have not pre-limited the configuration. In this case, then you would
specify to use only 1/2 of the resources on any node, but then,
logically,
you have the same thing as an Active/Passive configuration where you
fully
used the hardware on 1 node.

You would be better off creating a 2 x 1 N + I cluster configuration,
then
you would have 2 fully utilized nodes with one passive giving you 2/3
utilization overall (which is better than 1/2), but still maintain full
functionality during sever failure and maintenance. It would take a
concurrent 2 server failure before you would be back in the same
performance
condition as the Active/Active configuration.

Sincerely,


Anthony Thomas


--

"Claudia" <Claudia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:152D1698-2B32-41F5-894B-CC731DB55DBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony,
Because one node is already in production, and it also involves
replication
which will break with new virtual name, I will not try MSCS directly
and
upgrade sql between the two nodes.

Active-active setup is to fully use the hardware.

"Anthony Thomas" wrote:

You could just install MSCS and form a cluster between the to nodes.

Then, you could use SQL Server setup to upgrade the stand alone
instance
to
a single-instanced clustered instance.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191295.aspx

By the way, why do you want to consider Active/Active (a.k.a.,
multi-instanced) clustering when single-instanced will provide
sufficient
high availability?

Sincerely,


Anthony Thomas


--

"Claudia" <Claudia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3F0496AB-4736-4272-B44E-525270678299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank Geoff and Russ for quick response.

The second hardware set for the second node is the same as the
first
one,
and both are cluster compatible.

Both of your responses tell me that keeping the current sql
instance
is
impossible. I have to build a single node cluster first and
migrate
dbs +
replication.

Thanks again for the direction.

Claudia

"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:

"Claudia" <Claudia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:97F0E951-21F8-4A68-A9D4-251C3A86EB2F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I need to setup an active-active cluster with win2003 and
sql2005,
64-bit.

One node (sql2005, standard edition, using SAN as storage) is
already
in
production. For now, it's purely a stand-alone machine with no
Microsoft
Cluster Service. I need to add another node to build an
active-active
cluster. Because it's a mission critical production server, I
have
to
be
extra cautious. Has anybody done this and know the steps to
accomplish
this?
Any document/links that explain it in detail?

You have to configure the cluster service first. Only after the
service
is
installed can you install SQL on top of the cluster and have it
work
properly.

In your case, build a separate cluster, install SQL and then
migrate
your
databases to it.


--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th











.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: is data mirroing online? exchange2003 cluster
    ... First Microsoft does not recommend an A/A configuration as it has ... With that said it appears that some additional information on How cluster ... Windows Cluster does NOT replicate exchange data in any way manner or form. ... Each Exchange Virtual Server in an A/A configuration has its ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.setup.installation)
  • Re: is data mirroing online? exchange2003 cluster
    ... First Microsoft does not recommend an A/A configuration as it has ... With that said it appears that some additional information on How cluster ... Windows Cluster does NOT replicate exchange data in any way manner or form. ... Each Exchange Virtual Server in an A/A configuration has its ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin)
  • Re: is data mirroing online? exchange2003 cluster
    ... First Microsoft does not recommend an A/A configuration as it has ... With that said it appears that some additional information on How cluster ... Windows Cluster does NOT replicate exchange data in any way manner or form. ... Each Exchange Virtual Server in an A/A configuration has its ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.general)
  • Re: Basic clustering Q
    ... Whats wrong with a bit of server consolidation? ... You can never have enough DC's to support that cluster! ... >> Hot spare hard disk to provide extra FT across all disk configs. ... it's about support and having a working configuration ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Basic clustering Q
    ... MVP - Windows Server - Clustering ... > Ideal config for my file and print server cluster based on 2 node HP ... > Hot spare hard disk to provide extra FT across all disk configs. ... it's about support and having a working configuration ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)