May 13, 2011 at 1:06 am
SQL Server active active cluster, is that supported.
"More Green More Oxygen !! Plant a tree today"
May 13, 2011 at 3:51 am
yes
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
May 13, 2011 at 4:05 am
Microsoft support Active/Active Cluster but what does it mean active/active,its for multiple instance on a cluster and there is no any type of load balancing
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
May 13, 2011 at 7:16 am
colin.Leversuch-Roberts (5/13/2011)
yes
Strictly speaking no.
Syed Jahanzaib Bin hassan (5/13/2011)
Microsoft support Active/Active Cluster but what does it mean active/active,its for multiple instance on a cluster and there is no any type of load balancing
Correct. 2 or more instances on running on different nodes. When active/active is referred to, generally, it is expected to be load balanced with the same databases being available on each node.
May 13, 2011 at 9:09 am
windows clusters have never been able to be load balanced for sql server and as this is a sql server forum my answer was correct. You can have multiple instances on a cluster and you have sql server instances running on seperate nodes in a multi node cluster. We have the usual cluster active/passive and we have multiple node ( 4 ) clusters with each node ( active ) running different applications, some nodes running multiple instances.
You have never been able to load balance SQL Server so the answer was not relevent to the original question.
( that said you can load balance SQL Server with peer to peer replication but that has nothing to do with clusters )
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
May 13, 2011 at 9:12 am
oh yes you can deploy geographically seperated active active clusters for sql server too - but you need other software.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
May 13, 2011 at 9:55 am
colin.Leversuch-Roberts (5/13/2011)
windows clusters have never been able to be load balanced for sql server and as this is a sql server forum my answer was correct.
and that was my point. Not everyone knows this which is why the question was asked and you're single word answer was misleading.
colin.Leversuch-Roberts (5/13/2011)
oh yes you can deploy geographically seperated active active clusters for sql server too - but you need other software.
Also not strictly true, Windows 2008 includes enhancements for geographically dispersed clusters and across subnets and requires no additional software. You can enhance this using a more robust method using a SAN and SAN mirrorring "software" but that costs and is really tied to hardware rather than software.
May 15, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Please correct me so my understading is ;
I have two nodes in which I should have two separate instance in different file group sharing the same SAN, with one failover-node. If any of the primary node goes down then it will fail to the failover-node?
If both the primary nodes goes down will both of them fail over to the same failover-node?
"More Green More Oxygen !! Plant a tree today"
May 16, 2011 at 2:28 am
1-Qorum
1-MSDTC
1-SQL Server Instance One Resource Group,it have own disk
1-SQL Server Instance Second Resource Group,it have own disk
More than 1 instance on more than 1 node cluster,you can define same resource group for the second instance also,if you want to do this then you have to define all disk to the same resource group then allocate for the installation separately and for the databases,common files must install on the OS installation drive by default
When you define different SQL Resource group then you can run both instances on different nodes,we can say 1 instance on one node and other second one on second node because both are independent resource group,If One node fail then 1 instance move to another node which one already have second node
if you define the same SQL resource group then both instance can run on 1 node at a time,if node fail then both instance move to another available node
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
May 16, 2011 at 3:30 am
Thanks did helped me.
"More Green More Oxygen !! Plant a tree today"
May 18, 2011 at 4:01 am
MysteryJimbo (5/13/2011)
Windows 2008 includes enhancements for geographically dispersed clusters and across subnets and requires no additional software.
IIRC Windows 2008 can but SQL Server as an application cannot, worth double checking
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
May 18, 2011 at 4:42 am
Perry Whittle (5/18/2011)
MysteryJimbo (5/13/2011)
Windows 2008 includes enhancements for geographically dispersed clusters and across subnets and requires no additional software.IIRC Windows 2008 can but SQL Server as an application cannot, worth double checking
The point is it doesn't require additional software. VLAN's, network hardware, storage solution and Windows 2008 would do it.
May 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Actually san replication is a software solution because you have to buy the software. But we're getting off the point. In SQL Server, clustering allows you to have an instance on a single node with failover to what we call a passive node. Or both nodes can be active with a sql instance on each where a failure means both instances can run on a single node ( this saves having 50% of your hardware sitting around doing nothing ) You can then permutate this with extra sql instances and nodes depending upon o/s and editions.
At no point does windows cluster services with sql installed allow you any form of load balancing - there's still one set of storage ( single point of failure ). That's how it works out of the box.
There are then lots of proprietary solutions which may or may not work with SQL Server which allow server and storage failover between data centres.
Still these will not load balance - you can only do that by replicating your databases, so far I haven't been able to get a client to do this, mainly because you have to design your database to be replicated and most databases don't.
It's a difficult subject but how Oracle or another o/s handle this is not really relevant.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
May 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm
While it is commonly called Active/Active, MS actually calls it a "multiple-instance cluster". They have been trying, since 2000(?) to get rid of that Active/Active terminology.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
May 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm
yeah I know but everyone understands active/active & active/passive. But I agree
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply