Re: sql 2005 active/passive cluster options
- From: tagtagboys@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 22:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 3, 3:55 am, "geek-y-guy" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiS...@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
Maybe I'm confusing the terminology?
I'm using the Windows iSCSI driver to access the Storvault through a gigabit
switch. Is that not a valid config?
"geekyguy" wrote:
<tagtagb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1be6e5e6-f149-42b3-90d0-96fb17d35773@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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_ser...
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/clustering/cluster_sql...
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.
Thankyou for the recommendations and links - was able to persuade
management at the end to purchase the equipment (listed below) for 2-
node cluster and SAN.
2 x Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers with 4GB ram and dual 2.50Ghz xeon
quad-core processors
Dell PowerVault MD3000i with 4x 300GB SAS drives
24-port Dell gigabit switch
Both servers have two built-in NIC's and also got 2 extra NICs for
heartbeat. More ram can be added at later stage.
With configuration, I'm planning at installing SQL 2005 Standard 64-
bit and Windows 2008 Enterprise 64-bit unless someone thinks it's a
bad idea.
What would be an ideal configuration (based on my hardware) in terms
of RAID & disk/luns? Don't really want to use the new hardware just
for SQL i.e. looking at using virtualization for server consolidation
purposes if possible but this is something I'll need to investigate at
a later time.
Thanks for you help
.
- Prev by Date: Re: performance in a large table
- Next by Date: Re: 8 node active/active cluster
- Previous by thread: Install SQL 2005 in Active /Passive Cluster
- Next by thread: sql 2005 active/passive cluster
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
