Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" <EdwinvMierlo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:09:44 -0000
only
I did go through few docs in ms site and other forums, but got into
confusion when people say A/A is not recomended and most of them speak
abt SQL server which can run in multiple instances. Ours is an application
which can't run in multiple instances on same machine, So I was asking you
for every detail involved with A/A. Now I got into a conclusion that our
application may not work in A/A, hope I am correct?
If your application cannot run in multiple instances then you are limited to
"A/P" in a two node setup.
You can off-course do a 3 node "A/A/P" or "N+1" setup, and set the
"affinity". Setting the AntiAffinityClassNames ensures that no two the same
applications are running on the same node. See more about this here :
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296799
For instance, Exchange is using this to ensure that no two Exchange virtual
servers are running on the same node:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124140.aspx
So, a 3 node "N+1" configuration or a more-node "N+1" or "N+2" might work
for your application.
(e.g the following could work A/A/A/P, A/A/A/A/P/P)
I realize that these are more advanced configurations, so get practice and
experience first.
Also, I find it always useful to have a "practice-cluster" in a Virtual
Machine, so build yourself a cluster using Microsoft Virtual Server or
VMWare Server, and you can practice away without doing "harm" to your
official production/test equipment/setup.
Good Luck with Clustering, and if you have a problem, post it here and we
will try to help you out.
Rgds,
Edwin.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- References:
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Edwin vMierlo [MVP]
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Edwin vMierlo [MVP]
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Edwin vMierlo [MVP]
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Edwin vMierlo [MVP]
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- From: Srinivasm
- Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- Prev by Date: NLB Unicast VS Multicast
- Next by Date: Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- Previous by thread: Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- Next by thread: Re: Active/Passive to Active/Active
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|