July 29, 2013 at 10:00 am
Not asking for the solution but I am trying to come up with a conceptual design for an AlwaysOn solution. We have 2 seperate clusters, 1 at the primary site, 1 at DR, both of which contain 2 nodes, active/passive and I'm struggling a little to redesign this within 2012.
Its multi subnet and I know we can have a similar solution to the 2 cluster 2 node as exampled here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff878716.aspx but we dont have disk replication available (not sure why not, but we cant) so thats why I'm looking into availability groups.
I got to a 3 node, easy enough with 2 at the primary and 1 at the DR site and looked at 1 primary 3 secondary too but I dont know if its possible to incorporate the 2 clustered setups into the availability group structure? As said, just some pointers would be really appreciated.
Many thanks.
'Only he who wanders finds new paths'
July 29, 2013 at 11:36 am
I think your primary issue is that I think for AlwaysOn all of the machines have to be in the same Cluster for automatic failover. Always on is VERY different from what we know as MS SQL Clusters. What this means in practice is that failover locations don't have to have shared storage as a cluster does and is really mirroring under the hood.
Not sure if that helps..
CEWII
July 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Hi and many thanks for the reply.
Understand the concepts I think what I am trying to get my head around is that I can have a 3 node cluster, or 4 across the two sites and have one availability group. This would reduce the need for shared storage, and have offloading of reporting capabilities etc etc
On the other hand, I can have the existing (2008 R2) two, 2 node clusters with mirroring between the two sites (no shared storage I believe) both I think are quite feasible options...but which is the best, or what is the best I could do with this set up?
'Only he who wanders finds new paths'
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply