Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
RoyalSher
Yak Posting Veteran
95 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-08-08 : 02:54:16
|
| Hello everybody,We are trying to consolidate our servers, (already posted few questions in this forum) and as a requirement from the management we have been asked to move databases to instances (3 nodes) running under Active /Active /Passive mode.My doubts here are (1) Can we ever do this? I said "Yes", it may be possible but never tried. I thought I will get back with you guys, in here! Can anybody give your thoughts on this?(2) As I was doing my research on this, my teammate came up with this articlehttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx?pf=true.Now, as I went thro' this and was specifically highlighted by my team member on a topic:Scenario One: Four-Node Multiple-Instance SQL Server 2000 Failover Cluster, Three Active Nodes, One Standby (N+1)Here is the small brief,With four-node support, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server provides more flexibility in terms of a cluster configuration. The recommended way of using a four-node Windows 2000 Datacenter Server cluster in a SQL Server environment is to have three of the nodes each owning an instance of SQL Server 2000 and have the fourth be the warm standby. This is not unlike a log shipping scenario, or a single-instance failover cluster in which at least one node is waiting for work. This scenario is known as N+1. Instead of configuring your failover cluster to allow the instances to fail first to a node with another instance of SQL Server 2000 running, the fourth node should be configured as the primary failover.[/b] This would reduce the issue of having too many instances starving the resources of one node. AWE memory should be enabled in this scenario to allow each instance of SQL Server to address more memory than the 1 GB currently available. This allows your applications to scale out rather than limiting them if they exceed the memory allocation for SQL Server.Can somebody please help me to understand the highlighted portion? And my teammate argument here is that, why do you want to run a 3rd instance on the 3rd node for configuration - Active /Active /Passive, when it is going to be a [b]warm standby server and being a primary failover? I am unable to convince with any explanation but my gut feeling says, the configuration is possible and we would require a 3rd instance running too. But why is it, "according the document", I don't get it.I really appreciate all your time and help on this. RoyalSher.*********The world is the great gymnasium where we come to make ourselves strong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Node cluster - Active /Active /Passive