Re: Designing a Clustering Solution
From: John Toner [MVP] (jtoner_at_mvps.DIE.SPAM.DIE.org)
Date: 06/23/04
- Next message: John Toner [MVP]: "Re: Cluster Administrator and FTP Generic Servies on Active/Active Cluster"
- Previous message: Jamelia: "Cannot add node"
- In reply to: Rutger Bart: "Re: Designing a Clustering Solution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:52:16 -0400
I agree with Ramon, you should setup the second DC as a GC as well...I meant
to add that in my initial response. This way, if either of the DC's go down,
the domain will still be functional.
File & Print can be made into cluster resources, and so can DFS if you would
rather configure DFS. There's a ton of great information about setting up
clusters in the following KB article including links for setting up for file
& print and DFS:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q259267
Admittedly this article was written for NT/2000, but many of the
concepts/setup still applies to 2003.
For Exchange, you'll need to purchase the Enterprise version of Exchange and
you'll need to purchase one copy for each node in the cluster. You will in
fact setup Exchange and all your applications on "Virtual Servers" in the
cluster, but you'll still need to purchase three licenses.
For SQL, you'll also need the Enterprise version of SQL, though you'll only
need to purchase one copy for the cluster. There are many different
licensing options for SQL, so you should probably contact a licensing
specialist to figure out what's best for you. You can research your SQL
licensing options here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
If you have more questions, please let us know.
Regards,
John
"Rutger Bart" <hkintheuk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2c427b6.0406221034.54458d62@posting.google.com...
> Guys, many thanks for your time and considered opinions.
> Just a couple of questions in response to your architecture.
>
> >>Server 1 - No Cluster: Enterprise Server 2003 : DC with GC, DNS,
> DHCP, TS.
> >>Server 2 - No Cluster: Enterprise Server 2003 : DC setup as a
> secondary DNS,
> DHCP
>
> What happens when Server 1 goes down ? How do my users log in to the
> network ? Will Server 2 as a second DC handle that ok ?
>
> >Server 3 - Node 1 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : Exchange Server
> 2003
> >Server 4 - Node 2 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : SQL Server 2000
> >Server 5 - Node 3 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : File & Print
> Services
>
> If node 5 goes down, how do my users get file and print ? I didn't
> know F&P was cluster aware. In this scenario, is it better to use DFS
> then ?
>
> I take it that Nodes 1-3 will use a quorum device (HP MSA 500 Array).
> So putting RAID 5 on local drives for Server 1&2 is going to be
> essential, yes ?
>
> My Reseller tell me that I need to buy multiple copies of Exchange
> Server and SQL Server for the clustering. Yet a chap at HP told me
> that I only need to buy each copy once, and set them up on the array
> as "virtual applications". Is this possible, and even desirable ?
>
> I said we had 90 Clients but only 50 Exchange users, because 40 of
> those clients are just test pc's that need network connectivity for
> file & print.
>
> The overall intention is to obtain as high availability as possible
> across all points of failure. I can't afford the Exchange Server / SQL
> Server or F&P to be down for a couple of hours. 10 mins possibly, but
> certainly not 1 hour (bye bye job).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rutger.
>
> With the small amount of users, I wouldn't be too worried about having
> more
> than one application on a cluster node, but you'll still want to setup
> your
> "preferred owners" so that Exchange or SQL failover to Node 3 first. I
> wouldn't use a "passive" node for this configuration...but I
> personally hate
> having "idle" hardware.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
> "John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@mvps.DIE.SPAM.DIE.org> wrote in message
news:<#FPEeFGWEHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
> > I totally agree with Rod. A better configuration might be something like
the
> > following:
> >
> > Server 1 - No Cluster: Enterprise Server 2003 : DC with GC, DNS, DHCP,
TS.
> > Server 2 - No Cluster: Enterprise Server 2003 : DC setup as a secondary
DNS,
> > DHCP
> > Server 3 - Node 1 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : Exchange Server 2003
> > Server 4 - Node 2 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : SQL Server 2000
> > Server 5 - Node 3 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : File & Print
Services
> >
> > With the small amount of users, I wouldn't be too worried about having
more
> > than one application on a cluster node, but you'll still want to setup
your
> > "preferred owners" so that Exchange or SQL failover to Node 3 first. I
> > wouldn't use a "passive" node for this configuration...but I personally
hate
> > having "idle" hardware.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> >
> > "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> > message news:e9D9Jy$VEHA.2844@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Several things, first read this:
> > >
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;810986
> > >
> > > Exchange 2003 and being a DC are not support on a cluster node.
> > >
> > > With two DC's, you don't need them clustered.
> > >
> > > DNS is not cluster aware.
> > >
> > > Terminal Server is made for NLB and not clustering.
> > >
> > > Do you really need to cluster a 20 user 100MB SQL DB? Just asking.
> > >
> > > How are you planning on running some services on one proc and others
on
> > the
> > > other proc? Seems like a ton of each work.
> > >
> > > 90 users and only 50 get email? Really? I am not sure I would cluster
50
> > > users mailboxes, unless you have a large budget and really advanced
users.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > > MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> > > http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> > >
> > > "Rutger Bart" <hkintheuk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d2c427b6.0406211437.b978427@posting.google.com...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Can I run the following past some Cluster-Savvy folks ?
> > > >
> > > > I need to design a high-availability solution from scratch. I need
to
> > > > support Exchange Server 2003, SQL 2000 as the main components. My
> > > > solution is as follows.
> > > >
> > > > Node 1 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : Acting as DC. File & Print
> > > > Services
> > > > Node 2 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : Exchange Server 2003
> > > > Node 3 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : SQL Server 2000
> > > > Node 4 Active : Enterprise Server 2003 : DNS, DCHP, Global Catalog
> > > > Server, Terminal Services Server
> > > > Node 5 Passive : Enterprise Server 2003. Fail-over node
> > > >
> > > > I have 90 Clients requiring logon authentication for file and print
> > > > services. Of those 90, 50 require Exchange services for Outlook
2003.
> > > > Thus I need 90 CALS for Enterprise Svr and 50 for Exchange Svr.
> > > >
> > > > Is this a decent solution ? Overkill ? Or under specced ?
> > > >
> > > > Could I consolidate this, by doing the following ? Would it be
> > > > worthwhile ?
> > > >
> > > > Node1 : ES 2003. DC. F&P
> > > > Node 2 : Dual Xeon Processor 2 GB RAM. ES 2003. Processor 1 for
> > > > Exchange Svr. Processor 2 for SQL (I have about 20 people using the
> > > > SQL Server and the Database Size is about 100 MB)
> > > > Node 3 : Dual Xeon Processor 2 GB RAM : ES 2003. Processor 1 for
DNS,
> > > > DHCP, GC. Processor 2 for TSS
> > > > Node 4 : Dual Xeon Processor. ES 2003. Fail-over Server.
> > > >
> > > > Your thoughts and opinions would be most welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > RB
> > >
> > >
- Next message: John Toner [MVP]: "Re: Cluster Administrator and FTP Generic Servies on Active/Active Cluster"
- Previous message: Jamelia: "Cannot add node"
- In reply to: Rutger Bart: "Re: Designing a Clustering Solution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
