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 |
|
Jay1Jay
Yak Posting Veteran
50 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-07-27 : 16:06:48
|
| I have 2 node Cluster on Win2003 server. I have been able to successfully install SQL2000 enterprise on node 1 but when I try to install SQL2000 on Node 2, the installation fails with an error "Setup failed to perfrom requried operations on the cluster nodes" and the only option I have is to hit OK. Once I hit ok, it starts to perform cleanup and SQL doesn't get installed. I have check the SQLst.log files and it doesn't give much. What can be going wrong here...any suggestions.... I;m basically looking for an Active-->Active SQL Cluster enviorment so that I can place different databases on the two nodes.Thanks,Jay |
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-27 : 16:57:48
|
| What does it give? The answer lies in the log for sure.On another note, are you sure you need Active/Active cluster? A lot of people think they need A/A clusters, or they feel like resources are being wasted by A/P clusters, but typically, A/A clusters are a bad idea.-Chadhttp://www.clrsoft.comSoftware built for the Common Language Runtime. |
 |
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-27 : 20:12:39
|
| I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Why do you?How did you setup your Cluster resources and IP/VS information during the installation? What was in the error log, even if you think it's unimportant?MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-28 : 19:22:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by derrickleggett
I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Why do you?How did you setup your Cluster resources and IP/VS information during the installation? What was in the error log, even if you think it's unimportant?MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
An Active/Active solution doesn’t buy you very much (but itcosts a lot more). Here are some things to think about:*In Active/Active, you should never use more than 50% thecapacity of each of the servers in the Active/Active cluster. Why, you ask? Because if one server fails, the other has to pick up the load for the failed server. So if one server is running at 70% capacity and another is running at 60% capacity, then if either one fails, the remaining server would have to run at 130% of capacity, which of course is not possible. Not to mention as capacity nears 100%, thrashing becomes extremely high and you get diminishing returns. Therefore, Active/Active (contrary to how it might sound) does not provide any performance benefits – especially if there is a failure.* Active/Passive is much easier to set up and the softwareapplication doesn’t have to take any special conditions intoconsideration. (If you plan on partitioning across the nodes with A/A). * In Active/Active, SQL Enterprise licenses have to be purchased for both servers, whereas in Active/Passive, only the Active server needs licenses.-Chadhttp://www.clrsoft.comSoftware built for the Common Language Runtime. |
|
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-28 : 19:51:56
|
| I agree that if you have to partition an application and database across nodes it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, there are times when you can put a lot of resources on the second server that are not critical, but need the processors anyway. A good example of this is reporting. By putting reporting, analytics, etc on an active/active cluster with production, you can make use of the second server. If you have to fail over, see how it runs. If you do have any problems at all, which you shouldn't because much of your analytics and reporting would be done off hours many times, you can shut the other instances off.I don't like making blanket statements for things like this. You should always consider WHY people might want to do something like this. It's easy to mismanage an active/active cluster. That doesn't mean you throw it out the window.MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-28 : 20:17:05
|
| That is why I asked if he was sure he needed it. And I also said typically they are a bad idea. I didn't make a blanket statement and say it was always a bad idea, and should never be considered.Most people I have worked with that implement clusters get the urge to do A/A because they feel like the second node is being wasted. That is a bad reason in my opinion.I was hoping to hear his reasoning, and provide advice based on that. Even in your scenario, I don't agree that you should put that on an A/A cluster. I would much rather have my reporting server on a SQL 2000 Standard server at $5000 rather than have to pay a $25k licence just to put it on the cluster. Then when it fails, it degrades my production server's performance. -Chadhttp://www.clrsoft.comSoftware built for the Common Language Runtime. |
|
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-07-29 : 08:21:21
|
| :) Our reporting and analytics are every bit as intensive and time constrained as the production SQL Server. It would be nice to be in an environment where we only needed standard edition. I agree with you though. You have to look at all the variables. I want to make sure he doesn't just think, "oh, well that's a bad idea. On to the next solution".MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL2000 Install