Post reply

SQL Server 2016 Availability Groups and Failover Clustering Scenario Question

  • November 21, 2016 at 11:31 am

    #323117

    Hi,

    Here's a little background:

    -SQL Server 2016 Enterprise on Windows Server 2016 Core

    -Location A:

    -Two servers

    -Two SANs (one is 10 GbE/All Flash and the other is 1 GbE/much slower)

    -Location B:

    -Two servers

    -One SAN

    My plan:

    -One large Windows Failover Cluster Instance with all four nodes (separate the volumes' access by location)

    -ServerA in Location A will only have access to the 10 GbE SAN

    -ServerB in Location A will have access to both SANs (Is there a way to do this?)

    Reasoning:

    In Location A, if ServerA fails, it will failover to ServerB while still connected to the better performing 10 GbE SAN. If the 10 GbE SAN fails, then it will failover to ServerB connecting to the 1 GbE SAN. All of this will be synchronous Availability Groups in Location A and asynchronous in Location B.

    Would I need to install SQL Server failover cluster and standalone to achieve this? Will Windows Failover Cluster not like this?

    Any helps is GREATLY appreciated.

    Thanks!

    My Blog!

  • November 22, 2016 at 6:45 am

    #1913978

    Has no one encountered this situation?

    My Blog!

  • December 5, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    #1916088

    Help?

    My Blog!

  • December 6, 2016 at 9:25 am

    #1916275

    dajonx (11/21/2016)

    Hi,

    Here's a little background:

    -SQL Server 2016 Enterprise on Windows Server 2016 Core

    -Location A:

    -Two servers

    -Two SANs (one is 10 GbE/All Flash and the other is 1 GbE/much slower)

    -Location B:

    -Two servers

    -One SAN

    My plan:

    -One large Windows Failover Cluster Instance with all four nodes (separate the volumes' access by location)

    -ServerA in Location A will only have access to the 10 GbE SAN

    -ServerB in Location A will have access to both SANs (Is there a way to do this?)

    Reasoning:

    In Location A, if ServerA fails, it will failover to ServerB while still connected to the better performing 10 GbE SAN. If the 10 GbE SAN fails, then it will failover to ServerB connecting to the 1 GbE SAN. All of this will be synchronous Availability Groups in Location A and asynchronous in Location B.

    Would I need to install SQL Server failover cluster and standalone to achieve this? Will Windows Failover Cluster not like this?

    Any helps is GREATLY appreciated.

    Thanks!

    A little confusing by our title, do you plan for Availability Groups, FCI's or both?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉

  • December 6, 2016 at 9:36 am

    #1916281

    Sorry.

    I have a multi-subnet Windows Cluster set up currently. Two servers from Location A and two servers from Location B. I am planning on utilizing Availability Groups as well as Windows Failover.

    I am planning on Windows Failover for each location, but I was wondering if it was possible to have an "standalone" SQL instance on Server B (Location A) connected to another SAN (slower) in case the faster SAN goes down. The reason is if server A goes down, server B is still connected to the faster SAN and performance isn't degraded.

    I hope that makes a little more sense.

    Thank you!!

    My Blog!

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

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