July 7, 2008 at 11:07 am
One of our SA's says we can implement SQL Server 2005 - moving from an old SQL Server 2000/32-bit Win 2003 server to a new 64-bit Win Server 2003 server - and then cluster it all later on, when the clustering part of the project is approved (a lot of bureaucracy here). Everything I've read says clustering needs to be set up first. I haven't seen any references or examples that show clustering being implemented afterward. Yet the SA insists it's possible.
I think we may have to uninstall and reinstall SQL Server (detach databases, etc.), get back down to the OS level, create the clusters, then reinstall SQL Server, etc. In other words, re-invent the wheel. What do you all say?
July 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm
You can create a single node cluster and then add resources at a later date.
July 7, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I've certainly been wrong before, but it is my understanding that you will need to set up the OS Cluster first and then install the SQL Server instance. I don't think you can just turn a non-cluster into a cluster.
-Dan B
July 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It all depends on what is meant by "you can". You certainly can reuse the hardware, but my understanding is that you'd usually end up with having to reinitialize damn near everything to later turn it back into a cluster. Meaning the process would usually start with "make a backup and reformat the drives" and then proceed through and rebuild everything.
The easiest way to do this is to start by setting up a single node cluster which runs the whole thing, and then add nodes later as the additional funding becomes available, but that would depend on how much political resistance you're getting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
July 7, 2008 at 1:26 pm
A single-node cluster. Okay - I found a few blurbs about setting one up for testing, with the quorum drive on a partition of the c: drive, or local drive. So you could add an additional node or nodes later on - but would you do this for production? You wouldn't want your quorum drive to remain on that partition, would you? Could your quorum drive be a SAN drive in a single-node cluster? This doesn't really 'seem' like something one would do in a production environment...seems a little dicey. Something for testing, yes, but not something you'd do so you could create a 2-node cluster later on for your production server.
July 7, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The quorum drive would end up being a SAN drive. Whether it STARTS there or not is a business decision.
changing where the quorum drive is is something trivial, so you could decide that later. The data and log drives tend to be a LOT bigger, so harder to move around "for fun.
Ultimately - you want to set up as much as you can, as close to "production" as you can. In other words - set up the SAN side as if there were going to be multiple node. The more you go "smaller", the more stuff you'd have to rebuild when you want to do it "for real".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
July 7, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Okay - so I can create a single-node cluster using SAN storage and the quorum drive in the SAN as well. Install SQL Server 2005, migrate my databases, yada yada - then, I can add an additional node to my live, production SQL Server 'single-node' cluster, and life will be good. I just wanted to sum this up to see if I'm really getting the picture.
July 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Cdyer (7/7/2008)
Okay - so I can create a single-node cluster using SAN storage and the quorum drive in the SAN as well. Install SQL Server 2005, migrate my databases, yada yada - then, I can add an additional node to my live, production SQL Server 'single-node' cluster, and life will be good. I just wanted to sum this up to see if I'm really getting the picture.
That's likely to be your best possible outcome. In short - yup - sounds like you got the picture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
July 8, 2008 at 9:27 am
Cdyer (7/7/2008)
Okay - so I can create a single-node cluster using SAN storage and the quorum drive in the SAN as well. Install SQL Server 2005, migrate my databases, yada yada - then, I can add an additional node to my live, production SQL Server 'single-node' cluster, and life will be good. I just wanted to sum this up to see if I'm really getting the picture.
And MSDTC on the SAN as well.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
July 8, 2008 at 9:37 am
Hmm. Sorry, I'm not sure what 'MSDTC on the SAN' means. Maybe I need more coffee! Care to expound a bit? :doze:
July 8, 2008 at 10:47 am
Cdyer (7/8/2008)
Hmm. Sorry, I'm not sure what 'MSDTC on the SAN' means. Maybe I need more coffee! Care to expound a bit? :doze:
Cdyer - MSTDC is the Microsoft Distributed Transaction coordinator. Have a look at this KB article, "How to configure Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 cluster" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/301600
Regards,
Phil
July 8, 2008 at 11:38 am
Well yeah, I know what it is. I know it has to be installed on the cluster as well. The line, 'MSDTC on the SAN' just didn't connect. MSDTC runs on the server, it's not a storage object - it's a service isn't it? Anyhow yes I'll check out your link. MSDTC needs to be in this beast as well. Thanks!
July 8, 2008 at 11:52 am
It is a service, but it needs a shared disk resource when installed in a cluster.
-Dan B
July 8, 2008 at 11:56 am
Okay, I think I understand. I'm looking at the article now. Thanks for the info!
July 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm
With SQL Server 2005 on a Windows Server 2003 cluster, you're going to want shared disk resources for:
Quorum
MS DTC
Data
Logs
TempDB
The following will require IP and Network Names:
Quorum (the cluster name)
MS DTC
The SQL Server instance itself
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply