3 node SQL Server cluster - is it possible

Friends
I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
other member nodes if a box fails..
Thanks
Your best bet would be a four node cluster with three SQL instances. That
way there is a "clean" node ready to assume any single failed instance. If
you don't have a free node, you run into some compromises on memory
allocation so you can "stack" instances.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"D Goyal" <goyald@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134658318.825088.97770@.z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> Friends
> I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
> for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
> I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
> other member nodes if a box fails..
> Thanks
>

3 node SQL Server cluster - is it possible

Friends
I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
other member nodes if a box fails..
ThanksYour best bet would be a four node cluster with three SQL instances. That
way there is a "clean" node ready to assume any single failed instance. If
you don't have a free node, you run into some compromises on memory
allocation so you can "stack" instances.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"D Goyal" <goyald@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134658318.825088.97770@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Friends
> I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
> for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
> I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
> other member nodes if a box fails..
> Thanks
>

3 node SQL Server cluster - is it possible

Friends
I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
other member nodes if a box fails..
ThanksYour best bet would be a four node cluster with three SQL instances. That
way there is a "clean" node ready to assume any single failed instance. If
you don't have a free node, you run into some compromises on memory
allocation so you can "stack" instances.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"D Goyal" <goyald@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134658318.825088.97770@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Friends
> I will have three SQL Server 2000 boxes at my location. Is it possible
> for a SQL Server cluster with 3 nodes?
> I will like SQL servers running on their own boxes but to failover to
> other member nodes if a box fails..
> Thanks
>

2005 Mirroring for Centralized Backup?

I am new to 2005 mirroring but have read a lot of documentation on it. I want to use mirroring to centralize a bunch of DBs to one location and then back them up from that central point. However, from what I've read since the mirror is kept in a "recovering state" it cannot be accessed directly. Does that mean I wont be able to backup the mirrors? If so, are there any work arounds or different strategies for this?

Thanks!

Craig

yes the mirror db will be in recovering state so that additional transactional logs cud be applied.........so you can't take backup or read the contents of the mirror db.......only option is you can take a snapshot of the mirror db and read through the contents of it........refer,

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175511.aspx

snapshot is only read-only so you cannot alter the db in any ways

|||

Thanks for the quick reply.

It also looks like from this link, that the snapshot cannot be backed up either. (Look at the CONS section)

http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/database-administration/sql-server-2005-snapshots/

Do you know this to be true?

|||yes you are 100% right, we cannot backup the database snapshot........you can use it only for reporting purposes..........|||

Why dont you consider Snapshot or Transactional Replication for this purpose ? I strongly beilive using Transactional / Snapshot Replication could resolve the problem of Centralised backups again depends on the scenario

HTH

Vishal

|||

I may have my terminology wrong but I think thats what we discussed above. Deepak says we cant backup a database snapshot. I believe the transactional replication or "High Protection" mode as 2005 calls it, will leave the database in a "restoring" mode so you cannot access the database in any way, including a backup.

Please do tell if you know anything different or if I am confused!

Thanks,

Craig

|||Craig you have misinterpreted what Visha had said....we were discussing about database mirroring....in that the mirror db will be in recovering state and cannot read its contents nor backup the mirror db....if you want to read the contents you can go for database snapshots but it cannot be backed up as you rightly said......Vishal is talking about Replication in sql 2005 one of which is snapshot replication,transactional replication....etc..

for database mirroring you can refer,
http://deepakinsql.blogspot.com/ > just scroll till the end to read through the contents about mirroring
http://deepakinsql.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-configure-database-mirroring.html

for replication refer,
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb331775.aspx

feel free to clear your doubts......

thanxxxxxxxxx
|||

I had no idea there was a difference between replication and database mirroring!

Looks like replication is a bit more involved. I'm trying to find some decent step by step guides for replication but cant find much. Let me know if you have any good resources for setting it up!

Thanks again for your help.

|||

Found a good article - but again this doesnt sound like what I want. Says its a read only copy. I'm going to give it a shot and I'll let you know.

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=169612&seqNum=2

Transactional Replication

Transactional replication involves copying data from the publisher to the subscriber(s) once and then delivering transactions to the subscriber(s) as they occur on the publisher. The initial copy of the data is transported by using the same mechanism as with snapshot replication: SQL Server takes a snapshot of data on the publisher and moves it to the subscriber(s). As database users insert, update, or delete records on the publisher, transactions are forwarded to the subscriber(s).

To make sure that SQL Server synchronizes your transactions as quickly as possible, you can make a simple configuration change: Tell it to deliver transactions continuously. Alternatively, you can run synchronization tasks periodically. Transactional replication is most useful in environments that have a dependable dedicated network line between database servers participating in replication. Typically, database servers subscribing to transactional publications do not modify data; they use data strictly for read-only purposes. However, SQL Server does support transactional replication that allows data changes on subscribers as well.

|||For Documentation on Replication the best source is SQL Server 2005 Books Online

2005 Installation location

The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want to
uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing this
and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Example,
user security and scheduled jobs?
Thanks,
Emma
Hi Emma
You can backup the databases and restore them onto the new instance see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190679.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190749.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190255.aspx
If you are not changing the location of the user database files, restoring
master should recover them. If you then want to move them elsewhere they can
be detached/attached in the new location.
Make sure that you have the same build for the new version as the old one.
You may also want to check for orphaned users in each database
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274188
John
"Emma" wrote:

> The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want to
> uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing this
> and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Example,
> user security and scheduled jobs?
> Thanks,
> Emma
>

2005 Installation location

The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want to
uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing thi
s
and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Example,
user security and scheduled jobs?
Thanks,
EmmaHi Emma
You can backup the databases and restore them onto the new instance see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190679.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190749.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190255.aspx
If you are not changing the location of the user database files, restoring
master should recover them. If you then want to move them elsewhere they can
be detached/attached in the new location.
Make sure that you have the same build for the new version as the old one.
You may also want to check for orphaned users in each database
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274188
John
"Emma" wrote:

> The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want
to
> uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing t
his
> and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Exampl
e,
> user security and scheduled jobs?
> Thanks,
> Emma
>

2005 Installation location

The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want to
uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing this
and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Example,
user security and scheduled jobs?
Thanks,
EmmaHi Emma
You can backup the databases and restore them onto the new instance see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190679.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190749.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190255.aspx
If you are not changing the location of the user database files, restoring
master should recover them. If you then want to move them elsewhere they can
be detached/attached in the new location.
Make sure that you have the same build for the new version as the old one.
You may also want to check for orphaned users in each database
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274188
John
"Emma" wrote:
> The initial installation of 2005 was to the C drive of the server. I want to
> uninstall and reinstalling on the D drive. What is the best way of doing this
> and still retain all the information already setup in the database? Example,
> user security and scheduled jobs?
> Thanks,
> Emma
>

2005 Express and Replication

So if I have a remote location running Express that needs to publish data to
a central server, Enterprise edition, can I do that or is it not possible
due to Express being a Subscriber only for Merge and Transactional
Replication?
If this is not possible, what would be the best way to handle the publishing
of data from the remote to the central location taken into account the fact
that the remote is on a dial-up internet connection only available during
off-hours?
TIA
Michael MacGregor
Database Architect
I'd set it up as a merge subscriber - this allows for offline access and
will send data back to the publisher.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com