March 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I have installed an active/active cluster and everything seems to be working okay. I think I may have done this in a non-standard way?? I installed the sql system files on a SAN-attached drive instead of on the local drive. The cluster appears to be working okay and the failover works as well. I am concerned that there may be performance issues associated with this install later (we are still in a test environment). Has anyone done this or know of any reasons that this may not work?
Thanks,
Kim
March 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I'm thinking you mean Active/Passive (since ony one of the node has access to SQL server at any given time), or do you have multiple instances?
Did you follow this procedure?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179530.aspx
Othwerwise - is there something leading you to think it's not stable? Are you testing it with a load on the server, or are you failing over only with low activity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I did follow the instructions and everything looks okay. Our failover tests have been with very little activity. This is an Active/Active cluster with multiple instances of SQL installed. My big question is whether having the tempdb and the SQL executables will cause issues. I have tried moving the model/msdb databases to new locations and this process failed. I also tried changing the location of the master database and the configuration manager would not accept the changed settings. I'm just a little concerned that these issues are indicative of bigger problems.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply