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.

 All Forums
 SQL Server 2000 Forums
 SQL Server Administration (2000)
 Cluster server question

Author  Topic 

fredong
Yak Posting Veteran

80 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-08 : 16:30:22
Can I cluster SQL 2000 server with just 2 servers without using the Shared Storage drive or SAN and have the databases located in the physical A and B server ?If yes. How? Thanks.

k

ryanston
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team

89 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-08 : 18:24:26
No. Failover clustering requires a shared disk on which to place the data. How else would server B get access to the data if server A goes down?

Thanks,

----------------------
Ryan Stonecipher
Developer, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.)
Go to Top of Page

fredong
Yak Posting Veteran

80 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 09:31:58
Any documents from Microsoft to sustain that?Thx.

k
Go to Top of Page

ryanston
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team

89 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 11:11:09
You should look for Windows resources for guidance here, since SQL just sits on top of the services provided by the OS.

Perhaps http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx or http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/maintain/cluster.mspx.

Thanks,
--R

----------------------
Ryan Stonecipher
Developer, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.)
Go to Top of Page

MichaelP
Jedi Yak

2489 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 14:47:54
The only way to do get some "failover clustering" without a shared storage device is Log Shipping. Failover cluster is MUUUUUUCH better, and thus the reason why it costs more to impliment.

With all of that being said, what requirement are you trying to solve? If it's "never be down" then you need failover clustering. If it's "only be down for short periods of time and some data loss might be ok" then log shipping may work for ya.

Michael

<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. Cursors, path to the Dark Side they are. Avoid them, you must. Use Order By NewID() to get a random record you will.</Yoda>
Go to Top of Page

fredong
Yak Posting Veteran

80 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 15:22:58
I am trying to build a redundancy server for my Datawarehouse. What would you recommend and Cluster or log shipping?

k
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

38200 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 15:25:28
We use both clustering and log shipping. Clustering for hardware issues and maintenance at our primary site, log shipping to our secondary site for disaster recovery (if the primary site is no longer available).

How much is your company willing to pay?

Tara
Go to Top of Page

fredong
Yak Posting Veteran

80 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 16:21:53
Not much as far as I know they are not willing to pay for the shared storage place.

k
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

38200 Posts

Posted - 2005-09-09 : 16:25:47
Clustering would be out of the question then. Log shipping, however is free if you are using SQL Server Enterprise Edition. If you aren't, then you'll need to write your own log shipping. You can find other people's custom log shipping scripts by googling it.

Tara
Go to Top of Page
   

- Advertisement -