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 |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-08-01 : 08:27:24
|
| jerry writes "What are your thoughts on active/active vs active/passive clusters" |
|
|
solart
Posting Yak Master
148 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-01 : 13:32:00
|
| From a SQL 2K perspective.Active/passive clusters are cheaper to implement.Some folks don't want any hardware setting idle (effectively), thus are happier with active/active.Active/Active requires the use of named instances. Usually there is a default instance and one named instance. Therefore applications/individuals have to deal with named instances.I think it would be fair to say setup is more complicated for active/active. |
 |
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-01 : 15:12:49
|
| We use active passive and it's been working fine for us. I think the biggest problems with Active/Active are cost and complexity.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. |
|
|
|
JohnDeere
Posting Yak Master
191 Posts |
Posted - 2002-08-01 : 16:43:30
|
| If you go active/active make sure each node has enough resources (CPU,Disks, and Memory) to handle running both sql instances in a fail over situation.Lance Harra |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Types of clusters