Re: sql 2005 active/passive cluster options

It just seems to me that using NAS with SQL Server in its current state is
not something you want to do if you want HA. In a future version, support for
NAS may become robust. But until then, I'd stay away from NAS.

Linchi

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Agreed, though this KB article gives more details:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau


"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:450AA224-10A1-4B16-A5A1-D12836D3E87D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm curious about your using NAS as part of a HA solution. NAS is not
officially supported with SQL Server.

Linchi

"geekyguy" wrote:

<tagtagboys@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hope someone can help me out with this or at least point me to the
right direction. We're in the process of implementing an application
that is storing data on a seperate SQL 2005 Standard box. Recently the
SQL server had an hardware fault causing application downtime for
several days. Luckily it wasn't in production - yet. According to the
application support, the only sql fault tolerance that works with
their product is an active/passive sql cluster.

Now I'm a newbie in this area but basically from what I've read in
terms of active/passive failover I need two identical servers (since
will use SQL Std version) + SAN. My company is a small-medium sized so
forking out $$ for that solution might be out of reach.

SO basically my question is, are there any other ways around this e.g.
by using existing SQL 2005 box (close to 2yrs old + Win2k3 Std)? We
also have another SQL 2000 Std box running Windows 2000 Std but don't
think that'll help much. Thanks!


I was at the same x-roads six months ago and went with the active/passive
cluster. You would do well to follow the recommended procedures for
creating
a cluster. I found these guides very helpful:


http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/clustering/cluster_server_2003_p1.aspx

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/clustering/cluster_sql_server_2005_p1.aspx

It will be much easier to set up and diagnose problems if you used matched
hardware. You will need to use a NAS device for the shared storage between
the two servers. If you tell us your budget I can perhaps make some
recommendations. The system I built was:

2 x Supermicro 6015V-T 1U servers with 8-gig ram and dual 1.86 GHz xeon
quad-core processors
2 x Intel Pro1000 network cards (for third network/heartbeat)
Netapp Storvault S500 2TB NAS (2U)
16-port Dell gigabit unmanaged switch

If physical space considerations are not a factor, you could use
less-expensive hardware, although the servers were less than $3K apiece.
The
S500 will run about $7500 including a service contract. I battle-tested
their support and found it to be very good <g>. There is a free-standing
StorVault S300 that is less expensive, but not designed for rack
enclosures.

You will need three NICs in each server. The 1U servers had two built into
the motherboard and I needed a third PCI-X NIC for the heartbeat. I'm
using
a x-over cable to connect the two servers for the heartbeat, but you would
need ideally an unmanaged hub if you want to have more than two servers in
the cluster.

Whatever you do, make sure all the hardware is on Microsoft's
compatibility
list or you will not be happy, especially if you're installing 64-bit
versions of OS and SQL. You will need to install Server 2003 Enterprise if
you contemplate ever expanding the cluster beyond 2 boxes.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: N+1 Configuration
    ... Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP) ... But looking in the cluster admin tool, ... mounting all other drives under that drive ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... I have worked with Windows 2003 Small Business Server, Exchange Server 2003 and 2000 SQL server but not in a clustered environment. ... Do you want to cluster SQL? ... > you cannot install Cluster on a Small Business Edition, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... The SQL Cluster would need to be ... SQL will need to Enterprise as well. ... So if I understand you correctly one computer will need Windows Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Issues creating a new failover cluster on the same server
    ... G:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1 ... CHNSQL04 Cluster Group ... Drives: H and F ... Group, the MS DTC Group, and each of the SQL Server Instance Groups running ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Connecting to cluster instance from .NET
    ... I have tried using the SQL 2000 CD and i have ... Virtual IP addresses for the cluster resource groups. ... SQL Server will listen on only those IP addresses ... This is odd because the 172.16 network is a Class B ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)