February 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hi Guys,
Don't know if this is the right forum couldn't find on clustering though.
Is it possible for a single node to be part of two seperate SQL Server clusters?
Let me give an example, The node in question is called NodePassive
Cluster 1 - SQL Server Installed
Node 1 Active, NodePassive Passive
Cluster 2 - SQL Server Installed
Node 2 Active, NodePassive Passive.
This doesn't seem right to me but wanted other views of it. If it is possible how would it handle a failover of both node 1 and node 2 simultaneoulsy. i.e nodepassive is the active node for both clusters.
Any help would be much appreciated
Gethyn Elliswww.gethynellis.com
February 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm
if you mean can you have three nodes where one is the failover for the other two then the answer is yes. Have I installed or configured one - no - have I asked to have this - yes , but the suits were too concerned about stepping outside the usual active/passive active/active.
You would need to make sure each node could support all three nodes running.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
February 19, 2008 at 4:41 pm
For the two active nodes to run different installations of SQL would I have to use named instances?
Gethyn Elliswww.gethynellis.com
February 19, 2008 at 8:13 pm
What you are asking about is a multi-node cluster (one cluster with three nodes). You cannot (afaik) have two separate clusters sharing a node.
With that said - yes, you can only have one default instance of SQL Server per cluster - regardless of version (either 2000, 2005 or 2008). All other instances will be named instances.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
February 19, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Yes - you would need named instances. Your two clustered instances would have to have nothing in common or overlapping, just in case one single server needs to run both instance. By the way - you also need to make sure that each node is "strong enough" to run BOTH instances, just in case.
So - clusterA might need f,G,h,i to run its instance, clusterB would need to run its stuff on j,k,l,m,n
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 19, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Why would you not have one cluster, 3 nodes, 2 active, 1 passive. It's an N+1 cluster or am I missing something?
February 19, 2008 at 9:51 pm
It functionally IS a N+M cluster. You just likely want to have 2 separate IP's and 2 separate DNS names to go long with that, which will then line up along two cluster groups (each one dealing with one SQL instance. The node names don't matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply