January 3, 2008 at 10:53 am
Our shop has decided (against the recommendation of us DBAs) that our new cluster servers will run Windows 2003, clustered at the OS level, and SQL 2000 separately on each node, but with SQL NOT CLUSTERED.
We managed to get such a setup installed after a fashion, but have been unable to install SP4 on it.
Does anyone know for sure whether such a configuration is officially supported by Microsoft? Or alternately, specific technical details of how to do this, or why not to?
Happy New Year, and thanks for any helpful replies!
January 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Technically, I cannot see anything impossible. But you need to make sure to install all components of SQL Server, binary and databases, on local drives on each node, rather than on the shared drives.
January 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm
While you might be able to get it to work, I'm fairly confident that will NOT be supported...ever. MS tends to whine if your hardware isn't EXACTLY the same on both node.
The bigger question is - who's the musical genius that made the decision to go against all of the literature as to the right way to set up a clustered instance of SQL Server? It's always a lovely scenario to know that next time anything major goes - you're out in the cold, because that's very likely what MS will say.
Also - you now have the lovely obligation to cover BOTH nodes for licensing purposes. So be sure to send the bill for the extra licensing to whomever mr Beethoven is.
Of course - that's just my opinion. Might be worth ASKING Microsoft what they will do if/when you have a problem with that setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply