QOD 9/5/2003

Question

QOD 9/5/2003

Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Antares686 SSC Guru Points: 125444 More actions · Answer 1

Again I go back to the Standard debate I keep bringing up. Although the OS is clustered a single instance is running as a secondary instance on one node. I do believe, unless someone has documentation for sure, that you can use a Standard Edition on that server as the SQL server is not clustered in that scenario. Of course if you plan to add additional instances you run into whether or not Standard is a best choice. But then the Active/Passive deal about only a single instance on the primary node may disclude on a secondary node and it is questionable about and Active/Active if not the same. This question would have to be posed to a MS licensing rep to be sure it is writting that what is being done is on the up and up. The question just has too many unclear holes and may be nice to throw at an MS guy to see what they say.

Keith Henry Hall of Fame Points: 3759 More actions · Answer 2

quote:
Although the OS is clustered a single instance is running as a secondary instance on one node. I do believe, unless someone has documentation for sure, that you can use a Standard Edition on that server as the SQL server is not clustered in that scenario.

You can run sql standard on a cluster but you can't run it as a node.

For example suppose we have a cluster of two servers cls01 and cls02. You can run SQL standard on cls01, but if it goes down the SQL instance will not fail over to cls02.

You can run as many SQL enterprise instances as you need on a cluster, and you need as many proc licenses as will be running SQL, so A4/A4=8, A4/P4=4, A8/A8=16, etc. simple.

quote:
No statement is given to Active/Passive or Active/Active state

The question stated that 1 instance was on one node and 2 were on the other, and this would require Active/Active.

Is this argument academic? We seem to be talking FAQs and BOL almost exclusively here. Who here currently maintains a SQL 2000 cluster?

Here's one - you can run almost any application in a cluster and if you really know your cluster Architecture you can even run lite versions of SQL, but getting it reliable is a nightmare. The whole point of clustering is reliability and you wouldn't want to do it without Enterprise or Datacentre. Most suppliers seem to supply everything pre-installed with one cost these days anyway.

Keith Henry

According to everyone I know I "do something with computers?" for a living, so there you go.

mccork SSC-Insane Points: 22288 More actions · Answer 3

I'm surprised this question has caused so much debate. Whereas other QODs have had "missing information" (for example: the squillion QODs I've got wrong), I thought this one had all the information necessary to give a clear-cut answer.

Cheers,

- Mark

Cheers,
- Mark