Re: Active/Active Clustering
From: Jason Nash [MSFT] (jasnas_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 07/20/04
- Next message: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Previous message: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Third NIC in down state in cluster administrator"
- In reply to: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Next in thread: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Reply: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:50:32 -0500
I have encountered it in the "real world" on multiple occations. The setup
was great and high availability was maintained.
-- Jason Nash [MSFT] **Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup purposes only*** This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in message news:%23QQE2acbEHA.3148@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Agreed, but I have never hit one in the real world. If you want High > Availability, you have pay the price. When a system fails, you want the > same > level of performance out of it. Most people don't configure the systems so > that happens, hence why I really think this is a very bad idea. > > Cheers, > > Rod > > MVP - Windows Server - Clustering > http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering > > "Jason Nash [MSFT]" <jasnas@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:40fc1d94$1@news.microsoft.com... >> Hi Marcos, >> >> It isn't necessarily a bad idea. It really depends what type of >> resources >> you will be running on your cluster. There are many valid reasons to run > an >> Active/Active solution. >> >> >> -- >> >> Jason Nash [MSFT] >> **Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for >> newsgroup purposes only*** >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights. >> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm >> >> >> >> "Marcos" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:006a01c46dc1$ba019c80$a501280a@phx.gbl... >> > Hey Rod, >> > >> > I'm looking to setup a shared-nothing Active/Active >> > configuration. In which both nodes can host resources at >> > the same time, but they cannot host the same resource at >> > the same time. >> > >> > In your opinion, why is this a bad idea? >> > >> > Thank you. >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Active/Active is a very bad idea. When a system fails >> > and you run both DB's >> >>on one server, it can get ugly. With that said I have a >> > ton of white paper >> >>references on my website for SQL. >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>Rod >> >> >> >>MVP - Windows Server - Clustering >> >>http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering >> >> >> >>"Marcos" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in >> > message >> >>news:07ae01c46db9$61f8f720$a501280a@phx.gbl... >> >>> Any good information, white papers, how-tos, examples, >> >>> etc. on Active/Active Clustering? >> >>> >> >>> Thank you. >> >> >> >> >> >>. >> >> >> >> > >
- Next message: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Previous message: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Third NIC in down state in cluster administrator"
- In reply to: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Next in thread: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Reply: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]: "Re: Active/Active Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
