May 18, 2012 at 9:33 am
i currently have 2 sql clusters running on indepedent windows clusters for sql 2005 and windows 2003.
so thats 4 machines with two clusters.
i am upgrading and i still want to have 4 machine but i want to combine them.
so i want to have 1 windows cluster running on 4 servers with windows 2008
i want to have 2 different SQL clusters running on the 4 machines in an active passive configuration.
So a typical running configuration should be machine 1 ,2,3,4 with sql A running on let say machine 1 and sql B running on machine 2 , and machine 3 and 4 being standbys for the other machines.
ive been searching for examples but have not been able to find any online.
the reason i am doing this is to allow me 2 more machines i can switch my cluster to thus eliminating downtime.
May 18, 2012 at 9:44 am
Basically you need A/A/P/P and it is easy to achieve it .
May 18, 2012 at 10:24 am
Just to be clear we are talking SQL instances running on Windows clusters.
You can multiple instances running on a single Windows cluster. Easily achieved and completely configurable.
I would suggest each instance configured to have its prefer "partner" node so that should both active nodes fail, both instances dont start running on the same node.
May 18, 2012 at 1:08 pm
so i have 1 default and 1 named and only 1 sql cluster i cant have two.
is their any disadvantage to the way i am doing it now.
what do i gain from lossing a SQL instance.
can the different instances have different IPs
May 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm
vhall 67612 (5/18/2012)
so i have 1 default and 1 named and only 1 sql cluster i cant have two.
I'm not sure if Im being clear enough on the terminology. SQL instances are generally called SQL clusters but having two instances on a single windows cluster doesnt make it two clusters. It makes it a SQL cluster with two instances.
Depending on where the instances are running on the cluster, determines the licencing costs and whether the server is termed Active/Passive or Active/Active (in your case, Active/Active/Passive/Passive). Hopefully thats clear.
vhall 67612 (5/18/2012)
can the different instances have different IPs
Each instance will need its own IP in its own cluster group. This is a requirement.
vhall 67612 (5/18/2012)
is their any disadvantage to the way i am doing it now.
If your SAN (shared disks) go the whole cluster could potentially go bringing down both SQL instances. Having a degree of seperation between instances could be beneficial in this case.
In the past I've had two instances running on a 3 node cluster to reduce hardware costs.
May 18, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Thank you , your explaination helps alot.
its just that right now for patching and other things the two node two cluster option we have now is easier to manage and gives us a large degree of seperation when it comes to problem.
So haivng the two on a 4 node cluster gives me all the same benefits with the added benefit of extra hardware failure capacity.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply