May 30, 2002 at 1:47 pm
Being tasked to implement a Clustering scenario has become far more confusing than I originally thought.
First I know I hate to read long posts asking questions, so I will attempt to be brief 🙂
Our environment consists of one Dell 6450 running Win2kAS and one instance of SQL2000 SP2. the OS and SQL 2000 are installed on the Server, and the Data and Log files reside on a Dell PV650F SAN Storage device. This SQL instance contains around half a dozen databases used by various applications ranging from AS400 replication to SMS. My task was to take another identical 6450, attach it to the SAN, and implement a SQL Cluster that would not only provide Failover Fault Tolerance, but Load Balancing as well. However everything I have read seems to point away from having Two SQL 2000 Servers managing the same Instance at the same time in a load balancing scenario and only allows for an Active/Standby setup.
Is this true? I always hear about MS's push to Scale out..instead of scaling up. I find it hard to believe that you cannot implement an Active/Active solution using two different servers and a Shared Storage back end.
Could someone please clear this up for me? Perhaps its possible to split the databases themselves and have a dozen managed by one node and a dozen managed by the other but each setup to take over the other nodes databases in result of a failure?
Am I just completely off base here?
TIA
Brian
May 30, 2002 at 5:02 pm
Well the best to hope for is to run an active/active cluster and then horizontally partition the data accross the two instances. I have tested this out several times the only problem is if one of the servers fail the other will get flat hammered. two 6450's fully loaded 4 procs and all? is that a 650 shelf or do you have a brocade switch in there? I would also recomdend two HBA's per machine for fault tolerance as well.
Wes
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply