SQL Remove Old Backups: failover

Showing posts with label failover. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

3 part question on Failover

1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover
server, that supports both production servers?
Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the
servers
sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to
support failover?
2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run
reporting services against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load
on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it would always be up to date
with the latest data.)
Thanks.What technique did you plan to use for failover? Cluster, log shipping or replication? See
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx for elaboration.
Or in SQL Server 2005, you also have the option of Database mirroring.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message news:OOztrj$pFHA.1156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover server, that supports
> both production servers?
> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the servers
> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to support failover?
> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run reporting services against
> sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it
> would always be up to date with the latest data.)
> Thanks.
>|||Good question, the intention is to go to SQL Server 2005 in the beginning to
mid 2006. So, the immediate needs will be Cluster, shipping or replication.
I don't believe I want clustering, and am not 100% clear between log
shipping and replication. I assume I want the log shipping, to have a
failover server, pickup the load, in the event of the primary server
failing. So, it needs to be real-time. (which I know 2005 will support
easily)
So, we'll say log shipping.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23ia7Zp$pFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What technique did you plan to use for failover? Cluster, log shipping or
> replication? See
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
> for elaboration.
> Or in SQL Server 2005, you also have the option of Database mirroring.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:OOztrj$pFHA.1156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1
>> failover server, that supports both production servers?
>> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production
>> databases.
>> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the
>> servers
>> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
>> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to
>> support failover?
>> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
>> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
>> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run
>> reporting services against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional
>> load on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it would always be up
>> to date with the latest data.)
>> Thanks.
>|||Only cluster is real-time of the current options.
Log shipping will have a lag as much as the frequency you have between your log backup and restores.
And you need to kick out all the users for each restore. In short, don't use log shipping of you
want to do reporting of the standby database. Or use two databases, one for standby and one for
reporting. I strongly encourage you to read the HA paper I posted, as there are so many things to
consider...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message news:eMH5bu$pFHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Good question, the intention is to go to SQL Server 2005 in the beginning to mid 2006. So, the
> immediate needs will be Cluster, shipping or replication. I don't believe I want clustering, and
> am not 100% clear between log shipping and replication. I assume I want the log shipping, to have
> a failover server, pickup the load, in the event of the primary server failing. So, it needs to
> be real-time. (which I know 2005 will support easily)
> So, we'll say log shipping.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ia7Zp$pFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> What technique did you plan to use for failover? Cluster, log shipping or replication? See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx for elaboration.
>> Or in SQL Server 2005, you also have the option of Database mirroring.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>>
>> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message news:OOztrj$pFHA.1156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover server, that
>> supports both production servers?
>> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
>> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the servers
>> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
>> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to support failover?
>> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
>> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
>> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run reporting services against
>> sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention,
>> it would always be up to date with the latest data.)
>> Thanks.
>>
>|||I'll read, thanks, but do you have a suggestion as to what I should
consider, based on my questions?
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:O2VHty$pFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Only cluster is real-time of the current options.
> Log shipping will have a lag as much as the frequency you have between
> your log backup and restores. And you need to kick out all the users for
> each restore. In short, don't use log shipping of you want to do reporting
> of the standby database. Or use two databases, one for standby and one for
> reporting. I strongly encourage you to read the HA paper I posted, as
> there are so many things to consider...
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:eMH5bu$pFHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Good question, the intention is to go to SQL Server 2005 in the beginning
>> to mid 2006. So, the immediate needs will be Cluster, shipping or
>> replication. I don't believe I want clustering, and am not 100% clear
>> between log shipping and replication. I assume I want the log shipping,
>> to have a failover server, pickup the load, in the event of the primary
>> server failing. So, it needs to be real-time. (which I know 2005 will
>> support easily)
>> So, we'll say log shipping.
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:%23ia7Zp$pFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> What technique did you plan to use for failover? Cluster, log shipping
>> or replication? See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
>> for elaboration.
>> Or in SQL Server 2005, you also have the option of Database mirroring.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>>
>> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
>> news:OOztrj$pFHA.1156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1
>> failover server, that supports both production servers?
>> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production
>> databases.
>> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the
>> servers
>> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
>> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers
>> to support failover?
>> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
>> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
>> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run
>> reporting services against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional
>> load on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it would always be
>> up to date with the latest data.)
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>|||We don't have enough information. All methods has downsides, and I don't know how you prioritize
between the downsides of each method. Or the upsides either, of course. If you read the paper, you
can post back with additional information making the question a bit more ... qualified. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message news:Oqph34$pFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I'll read, thanks, but do you have a suggestion as to what I should consider, based on my
> questions?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:O2VHty$pFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Only cluster is real-time of the current options.
>> Log shipping will have a lag as much as the frequency you have between your log backup and
>> restores. And you need to kick out all the users for each restore. In short, don't use log
>> shipping of you want to do reporting of the standby database. Or use two databases, one for
>> standby and one for reporting. I strongly encourage you to read the HA paper I posted, as there
>> are so many things to consider...
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>>
>> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message news:eMH5bu$pFHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Good question, the intention is to go to SQL Server 2005 in the beginning to mid 2006. So, the
>> immediate needs will be Cluster, shipping or replication. I don't believe I want clustering, and
>> am not 100% clear between log shipping and replication. I assume I want the log shipping, to
>> have a failover server, pickup the load, in the event of the primary server failing. So, it
>> needs to be real-time. (which I know 2005 will support easily)
>> So, we'll say log shipping.
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ia7Zp$pFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> What technique did you plan to use for failover? Cluster, log shipping or replication? See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx for elaboration.
>> Or in SQL Server 2005, you also have the option of Database mirroring.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>>
>> "Kevin Antel" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
>> news:OOztrj$pFHA.1156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover server, that
>> supports both production servers?
>> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
>> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the servers
>> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
>> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to support failover?
>> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
>> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
>> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run reporting services
>> against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load on the production sqlserver? (Not to
>> mention, it would always be up to date with the latest data.)
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>|||"Kevin Antel" wrote:
> 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover
> server, that supports both production servers?
> Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
> sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the
> servers
> sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
> Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to
> support failover?
> 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
> 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
> Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run
> reporting services against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load
> on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it would always be up to date
> with the latest data.)
> Thanks.
>
>|||Sorry the blank reply...didn't realize they had profile verification and
reply on the same form.
I have a very similar scenario as Kevin, but only need that part 2 of his
question answered. Does the failover server require a seperate license?
Printable or downloadable doucumention would be greatly appreciated.
If I find the answer through any other means, I will post it here.
"Brian Norris" wrote:
>
> "Kevin Antel" wrote:
> > 1. If I have 2, seperate production SQL 2000 Servers, can I have 1 failover
> > server, that supports both production servers?
> >
> > Example. sqlserver01 and sqlserver02 have differenct production databases.
> > sqlserver03 acts as a failover to either of the
> > servers
> >
> > sqlserver02 fails, sqlserver03 picks up the traffic.
> >
> > Or, does it have to be a 1 to 1 correlation, where I need 4 sqlservers to
> > support failover?
> >
> > 2. Do I have to have a license for the failover server?
> >
> > 3. Can I use a failover server to support other requests?
> >
> > Example: sqlserver03 is failover for a production server. Can I run
> > reporting services against sqlserver03, so I don't put the additional load
> > on the production sqlserver? (Not to mention, it would always be up to date
> > with the latest data.)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >

3 part question on Failover

3 nodes active/active/passive cannot failover

Hi,
I created 2 nodes active/passive and tested the failover.
It worked.
I added a 3rd nodes as active.
Now nothing can failover to the passive.
Any suggestions where I should start troubleshooting.
Thanks in advance.
I'd start by checking the NT eventlogs for any related error, and if
necessary checking the cluster log.
It would also help to observe more closely the behavior of the cluster when
you try to move the group to the 'passive node' Do you see certain resources
online there at least briefly? Does this happen to all the groups? If it's
just some group(s), it could be because you have not done the necessary setup
on the added node as required by the app in the group.
Linchi
"sqlapprentice" wrote:

> Hi,
> I created 2 nodes active/passive and tested the failover.
> It worked.
> I added a 3rd nodes as active.
> Now nothing can failover to the passive.
> Any suggestions where I should start troubleshooting.
> Thanks in advance.
|||Thank you Linchi,
I talked to MS premier support and I ran the SQLDiag.
They could not find anything.
SQLCluster services keeps failing.
Do I have a problem with my registry or ODBC or name resolution?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd start by checking the NT eventlogs for any related error, and if
> necessary checking the cluster log.
> It would also help to observe more closely the behavior of the cluster when
> you try to move the group to the 'passive node' Do you see certain resources
> online there at least briefly? Does this happen to all the groups? If it's
> just some group(s), it could be because you have not done the necessary setup
> on the added node as required by the app in the group.
> Linchi
> "sqlapprentice" wrote:
|||Have you checked the Possible owners for the SQL resources?
SQLDiag is almost useless in troubleshooting a cluster issue. SQL
MPSReports gathers the information PSS needs.
Can the cluster resources move to all nodes?
32 bit or 64 bit?
Is this your setup?:
Instance one can live on node 1 or 2
Instance two can live on node 3 or 2
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.expertsrt.com - not your average tech Q&A site
"sqlapprentice" <sqlapprentice@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF44A9E3-A82D-4D1B-A4A3-0D45917C3E1E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you Linchi,
> I talked to MS premier support and I ran the SQLDiag.
> They could not find anything.
> SQLCluster services keeps failing.
> Do I have a problem with my registry or ODBC or name resolution?
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
|||Can you do the following:
1. Stop the SQL Server
2. With the entire group shut down, move the group to another node
3. If it moves over, go to the Service Control applet, and start the SQL
Server service
4. Shut it down and repeat on the other node
5. If this works, then you cluster config is definitely the problem.
6. If something doesn't work, you are going to get an error of some kind in
the event logs that points to the issue
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedNoSpam3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:Ou2BG4AQGHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you checked the Possible owners for the SQL resources?
> SQLDiag is almost useless in troubleshooting a cluster issue. SQL
> MPSReports gathers the information PSS needs.
> Can the cluster resources move to all nodes?
> 32 bit or 64 bit?
> Is this your setup?:
> Instance one can live on node 1 or 2
> Instance two can live on node 3 or 2
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.expertsrt.com - not your average tech Q&A site
>
> "sqlapprentice" <sqlapprentice@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BF44A9E3-A82D-4D1B-A4A3-0D45917C3E1E@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Hi Michael,
I found out that the MDAC and the registry were missing the named instance
entries.
Not sure what happen.
I fixed the registry and MDAC and the clusters are working now.
I cannot understand why adding a third cluster node as active created so
much problems.
Thanks again for the great help.
"Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:Oi73qmNQGHA.4900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Can you do the following:
> 1. Stop the SQL Server
> 2. With the entire group shut down, move the group to another node
> 3. If it moves over, go to the Service Control applet, and start the SQL
> Server service
> 4. Shut it down and repeat on the other node
> 5. If this works, then you cluster config is definitely the problem.
> 6. If something doesn't work, you are going to get an error of some kind
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> the event logs that points to the issue
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedNoSpam3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:Ou2BG4AQGHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
message[vbcol=seagreen]
necessary
>

Monday, February 13, 2012

2005 Failover Cluster SAN drives best practices

> What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
You should at least put yout transaction log files on a separate LUN from
your data LUN. This doesn't guarantee that your data and log would be placed
on separate spindles inside SAN because both LUNs can be carved from the sam
e
set of disks, but at least it gives you some separation.

> I am about to add a few more instances.
> Does each one need to have it's own LUN?
Each clustered instance will be implemented a separate cluster resource
group with its own disk resource(s). Since you can't have the same read/writ
e
disk as two separate disk resources in different resource groups, each
clustered instance needs its own LUN.

> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances?
You can't really share drive letters. But SQL2005 fully supports mounted
volumes in a cluster. These volumes don't have to be assigned separate drive
letters. As long as they are made disk resources, and are mounted under a
root drive letter, you can have multiple volumes in a resource group (or an
instance) with as few as one drive letter per instance.
Linchi
"Karl" wrote:

> I have a MS SQL 2005 default installation on a Windows 2003 cluster. I
> currently have two nodes and I am planning on adding more instances to
> run on the other node.
> First, I am not sure I have setup my existing default instance the best
> way for my cluster. I currently only have one 'Physical Disk' in the
> cluster group which is a LUN on our SAN. Both the data files and log
> files are stored there. What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
> I am about to add a few more instances. Does each one need to have it's
> own LUN?
> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances? I seem to remember reading a
> feature of 2005 that was related to this but, for the life of me, I
> cannot find it again.
> Any help would be appreciated!
> Thank you
> Karl
>I have a MS SQL 2005 default installation on a Windows 2003 cluster. I
currently have two nodes and I am planning on adding more instances to
run on the other node.
First, I am not sure I have setup my existing default instance the best
way for my cluster. I currently only have one 'Physical Disk' in the
cluster group which is a LUN on our SAN. Both the data files and log
files are stored there. What is the best practice to move the logs onto
another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
I am about to add a few more instances. Does each one need to have it's
own LUN?
There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
a way to share a LUN between instances? I seem to remember reading a
feature of 2005 that was related to this but, for the life of me, I
cannot find it again.
Any help would be appreciated!
Thank you
Karl|||> What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
You should at least put yout transaction log files on a separate LUN from
your data LUN. This doesn't guarantee that your data and log would be placed
on separate spindles inside SAN because both LUNs can be carved from the sam
e
set of disks, but at least it gives you some separation.

> I am about to add a few more instances.
> Does each one need to have it's own LUN?
Each clustered instance will be implemented a separate cluster resource
group with its own disk resource(s). Since you can't have the same read/writ
e
disk as two separate disk resources in different resource groups, each
clustered instance needs its own LUN.

> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances?
You can't really share drive letters. But SQL2005 fully supports mounted
volumes in a cluster. These volumes don't have to be assigned separate drive
letters. As long as they are made disk resources, and are mounted under a
root drive letter, you can have multiple volumes in a resource group (or an
instance) with as few as one drive letter per instance.
Linchi
"Karl" wrote:

> I have a MS SQL 2005 default installation on a Windows 2003 cluster. I
> currently have two nodes and I am planning on adding more instances to
> run on the other node.
> First, I am not sure I have setup my existing default instance the best
> way for my cluster. I currently only have one 'Physical Disk' in the
> cluster group which is a LUN on our SAN. Both the data files and log
> files are stored there. What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
> I am about to add a few more instances. Does each one need to have it's
> own LUN?
> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances? I seem to remember reading a
> feature of 2005 that was related to this but, for the life of me, I
> cannot find it again.
> Any help would be appreciated!
> Thank you
> Karl
>

2005 Failover Cluster SAN drives best practices

I have a MS SQL 2005 default installation on a Windows 2003 cluster. I
currently have two nodes and I am planning on adding more instances to
run on the other node.
First, I am not sure I have setup my existing default instance the best
way for my cluster. I currently only have one 'Physical Disk' in the
cluster group which is a LUN on our SAN. Both the data files and log
files are stored there. What is the best practice to move the logs onto
another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
I am about to add a few more instances. Does each one need to have it's
own LUN?
There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
a way to share a LUN between instances? I seem to remember reading a
feature of 2005 that was related to this but, for the life of me, I
cannot find it again.
Any help would be appreciated!
Thank you
Karl> What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
You should at least put yout transaction log files on a separate LUN from
your data LUN. This doesn't guarantee that your data and log would be placed
on separate spindles inside SAN because both LUNs can be carved from the same
set of disks, but at least it gives you some separation.
> I am about to add a few more instances.
> Does each one need to have it's own LUN?
Each clustered instance will be implemented a separate cluster resource
group with its own disk resource(s). Since you can't have the same read/write
disk as two separate disk resources in different resource groups, each
clustered instance needs its own LUN.
> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances?
You can't really share drive letters. But SQL2005 fully supports mounted
volumes in a cluster. These volumes don't have to be assigned separate drive
letters. As long as they are made disk resources, and are mounted under a
root drive letter, you can have multiple volumes in a resource group (or an
instance) with as few as one drive letter per instance.
Linchi
"Karl" wrote:
> I have a MS SQL 2005 default installation on a Windows 2003 cluster. I
> currently have two nodes and I am planning on adding more instances to
> run on the other node.
> First, I am not sure I have setup my existing default instance the best
> way for my cluster. I currently only have one 'Physical Disk' in the
> cluster group which is a LUN on our SAN. Both the data files and log
> files are stored there. What is the best practice to move the logs onto
> another spindle? Do I have to just create another LUN?
> I am about to add a few more instances. Does each one need to have it's
> own LUN?
> There is a limited amount of drive letters that I can create. Is there
> a way to share a LUN between instances? I seem to remember reading a
> feature of 2005 that was related to this but, for the life of me, I
> cannot find it again.
> Any help would be appreciated!
> Thank you
> Karl
>

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

3 part question on Failover

3 part question on Failover

3 part question on Failover

3 nodes active/active/passive cannot failover

Monday, February 13, 2012

2005 Failover Cluster SAN drives best practices

2005 Failover Cluster SAN drives best practices

SQL Remove Old Backups

Blog Archive

About Me