Aw nice one. Cheers guys. That was pleasing to wake up to find someone had written it for me!

Now come to London and collect your beers 🙂

Ahhhhh! Right.

Interesting part for me is why you'd not want the DR node to have a vote? When would this situation likely arise?

Yup that was how I understood it but this comment somewhere else (still searching) described a peculiar scenario in which he/she needed a witness with increased voting weight.

Hmmm,...

Whilst on this subject, is there benefit to having a FSW in location #3 when you have a 3 node cluster split over two other locations?

I understand that...

Yes, we have 3 locations and the FSW is sited at location #3

Cheers!

Cheers Perry. That makes life easier 🙂

Actually, I think I have it sussed... would someone mind double checking -- it *seems* to return the results I would expect, cross checking against the databases manually...

Hi Thomas,

Yes, spot on -- whilst we haven't quite got a plan of action for the app servers (there is a potential in house rewrite of an existing vendor...

Thanks again Scott. It's slated for upgrade 'any time now' actually to SQL Server 2016 -- the end goal to bring all these acquired servers onto a uniform version. Right...

To be fair Scott, I should have known to query that!

So, is this, do you think, indicative of a disk/memory/controller problem that I should be worried about?...

Ah, found.... wrong table name!

SELECT * FROM sys.indexes WHERE object_id = 720721620 and index_id = 47