March 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I currently have a project that needs a second instance installed on my current SQL 2000 enterprise cluster.
My Setup:
My current cluster has a default instance with to cluster groups.
The first cluster group is the group containing the quorum and MSCS resources the second group is the SQL Group which contains three drive resources for my data, logs, and backups; the rest of the group contains the SQL resource for the default instance.
Install Problem:
- I run the installation of SQL 2000 enterprise from the active node in the cluster
- I then enter the virtual server name of my current SQL virtual server: SQL-CL1
- the next step should be to select install new instance but the option is grayed out
- the only option that I am seeing is when I enter a new SQL virtual server name: SQL-CL2
I get the option to install a default or named instance as if it is a brand new
installation. If I were to install this is that configuration I would need additional
quorum and disk resources for the new SQL server, as I understand this would be more
of an Active/Active configuration not just another name instance.
Question?
I need to now why the option to install a named instance is grayed out when I try and install a new named instance into the existing SQL virtual cluster server?
Any suggestions or information would be very much appreciated!
~DH
March 2, 2007 at 2:14 am
Derrick
I don't think it's possible to do it how you want to. You need to create a new virtual server. I'm not sure whether you'll be able to use the same disk resources for the new virtual server, since I've never tried it. You should be able to use the same quorum resource, though - you only need one of those per cluster. Don't forget that if you're installing a new virtual SQL Server, you need to get a new IP address from your network administrator.
John
March 2, 2007 at 5:34 am
as John says, you need a new virtual server, clustered instances don't add quite the same as a non clustered environment.
I'm thinking back to running an active active cluster and I'm pretty sure each virtual server needs dedicated resources. Even if you could share them it would be pretty dangerous as you then create cross dependencies .. doesn't even bear thinking about !!!
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
March 2, 2007 at 5:45 am
I took a look at a cluster that has 3 SQL Server 2000 instances running and found 4 cluster resource groups:
"Cluster group" containing resources Cluster Name, Cluster IP, MSDTC and the Quorom
Each of the three SQL Server instances is in its own group and each group has SQL Server, SQL Server Agent, SQL IP, SQL Network Name and its own disk drives.
Each disk is in only one SQL Server group.
From the MS documentation:
All partitions on the cluster storage device must be formatted with NTFS and all partitions on one disk are managed as one resource and moved as a unit between nodes.
Hope this helps.
SQL = Scarcely Qualifies as a Language
March 2, 2007 at 7:17 am
I thank everbody for their help! I feared as much. I had already anticipated your answers and had requested a new IP for the virtual SQL server and created a DNS entry. I guess the only thing I will need to do now is request more drives and space from the SAN admin.
Again
Thank you all,
Derrick
~DH
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply