Re: Basic clustering Q

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Damn MCTs, they never listen. Did you read this
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;281662 yet? If not
read it and fast like! LOL!

You configuration looks better now, but in a two node with nodes owning a
group you running Active/Active. Nothing wrong with it for File and Print
though.

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
http://msmvps.com/clustering/archive/2005/07/20/58233.aspx NYC Clustering
class


"Chris Rhodes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%236pBNNRoFHA.2156@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Been reading up a bit more....
>
> See if I have the hang of it now....:-)
>
> Ideal config for my file and print server cluster based on 2 node HP
> DL380's
> working with MSA1000 SAN:
>
> 2003 Ent version installed on each server.
> Local RAID1 implemented for each server for O/S etc
> pagefile located on seperate drive if possible, otherwise on RAID 1.
>
> SAN setup with 3 disk configurations:
> 1) RAID 5 for file server resources
> 2) RAID ?? for print server resources (RAID 5 again???)
> 3) RAID ?? for Quorum (RAID needed here? if so presume RAID1??)
> Hot spare hard disk to provide extra FT across all disk configs.
>
> each disk set is then seen by the cluster as a physical disk resource that
> then maps to a cluster resource belonging to its own group in each case.
>
> Node 1 to own Quorum group and File server group
> Node 2 to own print server group
> (Am I correct in thinking these are seen then as seperate Virtual Servers?
> Or can I get them just to appear as 1?)
>
> Each group can failover to the other node, but both are 'active' nodes for
> their relevant group ownership
> Strictly speaking I am still using active/passive but defined per group.
> Each box is spec'd to handle the relevant load of the other group(s) that
> the other server owns.
>
> BTW still not convinced about the DC thing Rod, but I'll believe you!
> (Where
> does it say I cant do this and why? I agree it may not be preferable)
> so I'll somehow get them to cough up some more ££ for some DC's and say
> 'Rod
> told me so' !!!
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Chris
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:u1x6xHPoFHA.1048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Answers below... Though I can save you sometime, don't cluster your DC's.
>>
>> "Chris Rhodes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%230oMtuOoFHA.4056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Perhaps I don't quite get it or have explained it very well.
>>>
>>
>> Not to worry, I will try again. Don't cluster your DC's!
>>
>>> Basically we want to cluster the file and print, (point taken about
>>> multiple LUN's for this), but also piggy back AD on the units (just as
>>> regular DC instances) installed first before the cluster is configured.
>>> Surely with appropriate fail over settings, DC's can run on the same
>>> boxes? The user load I am looking at is max 150 users, so with the h/w
>>> spec I'm looking at, I don't think the servers will be overloaded enough
>>> to cause cluster service to kick in the fail over - hence be OK???
>>>
>>
>> No, its not OK. It's not a good idea. No, it's not support. No. No. NO!
>> DC's are already Fault Tolerant if you have more then 1. Never cluster a
>> DC. Don't add it as an instance. Don't do anything you mentioned above. I
>> don't care how many users they have, don't do the above. It's not an
>> overhead issue, it's about support and having a working configuration
>> when you are done. So, no it's not ok. It's not a good idea. No! I hope
>> that was clear :)
>>
>>> The KB you mentioned says basically, try not to, and its best to use
>>> seperate DCs so service accounts etc are always accessible, but with 2
>>> servers anyway...??
>>> I would ordinarily agree - seperate servers for cluster and DC's, but
>>> really whats stopping me?
>>>
>>
>> Correct, the KB is 100% correct. Never cluster a DC!!! Never! What is
>> stopping you? Nothing, but if you want your configuration to work...
>>
>>> I realise that the DC's will not be clustered, and that's fine. AD is
>>> redundant by design when >1 DC anyway. We may add a 3rd DC in too
>>> potentially, but the money is tagged to go on the new spec I mentioned,
>>> so the customer wants 1 all singing all dancing SAN doing it all. Even
>>> with it not being <recommended> do you still think its to be avoided?
>>>
>>
>> YES!!! Avoid it. Talk them out of it. Don't cluster your DC's!!! Never!
>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> "Ryan Sokolowski [MVP - Avanade]" <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> message news:%23pH4Te2nFHA.1480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Rod is right (as always) - Never cluster Domain Controllers. They are
>>>> architected to use a Multi-Master model and do not benefit (quite the
>>>> contrary) from clustering...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ryan Sokolowski
>>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>>> MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP
>>>> Avanade
>>>> http://www.Avanade.com
>>>>
>>>> "A troubleshooter's best tool is the Event Viewer and understanding the
>>>> events and messages contained therein."
>>>>
>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> message news:uKDhKP2nFHA.2916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> What did you read that said it's ok to cluster a DC? Trust me, don't
>>>>> do it! Ever :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod
>>>>>
>>>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>>>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>>>>> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering/archive/2005/07/20/58233.aspx NYC
>>>>> Clustering class
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris Rhodes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OILWIH2nFHA.2156@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>I already read that which made me think it would be OK?
>>>>>> Why not then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:u6fYuF2nFHA.860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Keep the DC's as far from the clustered nodes as possible, never
>>>>>>> cluster a DC. Buy two low end machines as DC's if you have too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft does not support clustered DC's -
>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=281662. Just don't do it!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>>>>>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>>>>>>> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering/archive/2005/07/20/58233.aspx NYC
>>>>>>> Clustering class
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris Rhodes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uEuRCC2nFHA.1088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Hi Rod,
>>>>>>>> ..as in two physical servers running as DC's that also share
>>>>>>>> clustered space for file and print.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eg the DC part is not clusterable, but I know will run on cluster
>>>>>>>> nodes.(I think!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>>>> in message news:uUK8TX1nFHA.3564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> Please define two separate instances of DC's for me? You mean
>>>>>>>>> dedicated DC machines right? Not clustered nodes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the best HA, you wanted everything separated. 1 GB Quorum
>>>>>>>>> Physical Disk (or LUN), 1 disk for File shares, 1 disk for
>>>>>>>>> Printers. 3 Groups (cluster, File, and Print). You need to
>>>>>>>>> separate File and Print because the Print disk will be very
>>>>>>>>> fragmented.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
>>>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>>>>>>>>> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
>>>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering/archive/2005/07/20/58233.aspx NYC
>>>>>>>>> Clustering class
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Chris Rhodes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:uR4hUn0nFHA.2904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>> This may seem a little elementary for some of you out there, but
>>>>>>>>>> bear with
>>>>>>>>>> me I am not fantastically experienced in the world of clustering!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a customer who wants high-avail file and print services as
>>>>>>>>>> well as
>>>>>>>>>> AD/DNS etc on 2 boxes.
>>>>>>>>>> Specifically we are looking at 2x HP DL380's with a MSA1000
>>>>>>>>>> storage box over
>>>>>>>>>> fibre.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know AD cannot be clustered, but can run OK as two seperate
>>>>>>>>>> instances of
>>>>>>>>>> DC's on the 2 boxes.
>>>>>>>>>> So are we OK just to create a shared disk resource for the file
>>>>>>>>>> and print
>>>>>>>>>> sharing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And am I right in thinking we need to do this as a single quorum
>>>>>>>>>> device
>>>>>>>>>> cluster with the disk resource(s) set to fail over to server2?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>> Am I on track here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: setup custer - one node already in production
    ... First, in a single-instance configuration, you only have to license the ... some installations beef-up the passive node to be able to ... To run SQL Server 2000 x86 editions, unfortunately, you can only run on up ... 8-node cluster configurations are supported. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: Added disk resource, now cannot fail over to other cluster
    ... give it a letter on Server1 only, then in cluster Administrator on Server1 ... in the new group for the new disk and bring it online. ... go into Cluster Admin and move the resource group to Server2. ... Please note that the server that does not currently own the disk resource, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • 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)