July 14, 2015 at 10:37 am
What I have- Sql server 2012 (Standard Ed) Cluster on Windows 2012 R2 with both instances running on the same node- just to save on License, i.e. technically it’s Act/Pas cluster.
What I am looking for- how to configure cluster (e.g. via quorum, etc) to force both instances failed together? Means if for some reason 1-st instance will fail to node 2 another instance should follow (otherwise it will be Act/Act cluster and 2-nd license is required).
If there is no standard way (cluster configuration I mean) to do it I should create some custom process to monitor where each instance is running.
Thanks
July 14, 2015 at 11:20 pm
Yuri55 (7/14/2015)
What I am looking for- how to configure cluster (e.g. via quorum, etc) to force both instances failed together?
Quorum does not provide what you are seeking, quorum is an entity that exists to maintain majority, in thos case a majority vote within the cluster. It will use either standard majority node set, or majority node set with a witness (disk or fileshare based). To get a better understanding of SQL server HA read my stairway series starting at the following link
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Failover+Clustered+Instance+(FCI)/107536/[/url]
Yuri55 (7/14/2015)
Means if for some reason 1-st instance will fail to node 2 another instance should follow (otherwise it will be Act/Act cluster and 2-nd license is required).If there is no standard way (cluster configuration I mean) to do it I should create some custom process to monitor where each instance is running.
Thanks
This is certainly possible to set dependencies on cluster groups in Veritas Cluster Server, not aware of this ability at present in either MSCS or WSFC.
If this functionality is core for you, you may want to consider VCS.
Something to consider though, say 1 instance fails at 11am in the morning on a normal business day, do you really want to fail instance 2 over mid morning and disconnect all who are\maybe connected?
You might want to check with the business that this will be acceptable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
July 16, 2015 at 7:57 am
Thanks Perry.
On the second thought- this problem (2-nd instance should follow 1-st one after failover to another node) looks a bit confusing to me now. I mean main reason for 1-st instance failover will be probably node1 issue- in that case instance 2 certainly will fail to node 2 also. Otherwise I cannot imagine what (reason) can trigger only single instance failover to another node keeping 2-nd instance on default node?
Anyhow there is something to think about
Thanks again
July 18, 2015 at 7:01 am
Yuri55 (7/16/2015)
Thanks Perry.On the second thought- this problem (2-nd instance should follow 1-st one after failover to another node) looks a bit confusing to me now. I mean main reason for 1-st instance failover will be probably node1 issue- in that case instance 2 certainly will fail to node 2 also. Otherwise I cannot imagine what (reason) can trigger only single instance failover to another node keeping 2-nd instance on default node?
Anyhow there is something to think about
Thanks again
No, it won't necessarily be a node problem, you may have a software\service failure which may cause the instance to failover.
As i said, if you're looking for cluster subsystems that provide group dependency configurations you'll need to look to an alternative vendor such as Veritas or HP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply