Re: Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- From: "Ramon Jiménez [MVP]" <rjimenezm.at.hotmail@com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:51:21 +0200
I would follow Rod's advice and would go for more HD's, and leave, although
it could seem a waste of Storage one (1) Physical Disk (RAID-1) for the
Quorum.
At least I would go for 4 additional HD's (2 RAID-1) for Database and Logs
but final design would depend on clustered-non clustered indexes and other
SQL related stuff
"Didier P" <didierp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ubfcWOK2FHA.3180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Can you explain more deeply what you mean :
> - I can't create a new group, because I have only one physical disk. True?
> - So all my partitions will reside in the cluster Group. Is it possible to
> have such a group??
> - Is it possible to install SQL Server 2000 using the cluster group?
> - In this case, what is the danger to have Quorum, Database, Logs on the
> same group and then on the same physical disk?
> We will buy disk, but we need to understand why we have to spend money.
>
> Thanks for you rhelp.
>
> Didier PARIS
>
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans
le
> message de news: eP3fkEJ2FHA.2792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I take it the 36 RAID 1 is shared storage? Clustering treats partitions
as
> >one physical disk resource. Everything in the configuration you mentioned
> >would reside in the Cluster Group only. You can have 5 partitions or
only
> >1, it does not matter to the cluster - they are all the same disk.
> >
> > You really need to buy more disks and create a new RAID array for SQL to
> > use. Or two even to separate the Databases from the Logs.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > "Didier P" <didierp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:uA0wzmH2FHA.908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> We are building a new cluster configuration based on the following
> >> hardware :
> >> - 2 HP proliant DL380
> >> - disk array : 2 X 36Gb RAID-1
> >> - disk partionning : 5 partitions : (1Gb for Quorum, 25Gb for Database,
> >> and 3 others partitions for shared stockage)
> >>
> >> The W2K3 SP1 cluster has been installed using the following
configuration
> >> :
> >> - quorum has been installed on default cluster group using the 1Gb
> >> partition, but in fact the quorum is really attached to the RAID-1 disk
> >>
> >> We have to install the SQL server 2000 on this cluster. We have to
create
> >> a new virtual server.
> >> To do that, do we have to create a new group using the 25Gb partition?
In
> >> this case this new group will be actually attached to the RAID-1 disk
> >> which is already used by the quorum. It seems that it is not
recommended.
> >> Another solution could be to install SQL server on the default cluster
> >> group. But it is also dangerous to do that.
> >> Or third solution : it is to not configure in RAID-1 the disk array.
> >>
> >> What could be the best solution to use SQL Server 2000 on W2K3 SP1
> >> cluster system with this basic hardware configuration?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Didier PARIS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
.
- References:
- Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- From: Didier P
- Re: Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- From: Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
- Re: Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- From: Didier P
- Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- Prev by Date: Re: When adding 2nd node, unable to see shared drives
- Next by Date: Re: How is active/active configuartion possible?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- Next by thread: Re: Cluster configuration with SQL Server 2000
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
