| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : Setting up Server Cluster for SQL Server - 2 Servers and a NAS
Hi all,
I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding good information on how to implement this. Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to run? Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use anything that can do SMB sharing? I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. --acorn
Geoff,
Thanks for your reply. So, with what we have (2 Windows Server 2003, enterprise Edition, 1 Windows Server 2003 Standard Domain Controller, one server with SATA RAID capability, currently with no OS, and Gigabit Ethernet infrastructure), what do you think we could do to get SQL server redundancy? Do we need more equipment? Thanks again, --acorn [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a NAS box > for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many experience > stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such as the > EMC CX-300 or 500 model. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Senior Database Administrator > Careerbuilder.com > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > www.sqlpass.org > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... > > Hi all, > > > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a > > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We > > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding good > > information on how to implement this. > > > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, > > which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL > > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain > > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, > > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with > > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to run? > > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use anything > > that can do SMB sharing? > > > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. > > > > --acorn > > > >
Yes, I do need lots of training. However, I have been put, or put myself, in
a position where I need information NOW. The software company is going to take care of the SQL part, they say. All I need to do is have the servers set up, and whatever needs to happen with the cluster so they can do their part. Unfortunately, the hardware and software HAS already been purchased, so that is what we have. I don't beleive that it can't be done, but if you prefer not to help with specifics, suit yourself. Thanks, anyways, for your replies --acorn [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> You need a clustered SQL solution and lots of training. Any of the major > hardware vendors can help you build a SQL cluster. Do-it-yourself clusters > are not recommend and not supported. There is a specific Cluster Hardware > Compatibility List (HCL) and the entire solution must be cluster certified. > Otherwise, incompatibility issues will likely cause more availability issues > than clustering will buy you. You can build a SCSI-based cluster, but I > strongly discourage that for several reasons. Again, a smallish SAN is > probably your best solution. FInd either a local vendor that has a good > reputation OR go with one of the major national players. Also, look into > training. High Availability is not a hardware-only solution. People, > Procedures, and Mind-set are far more important. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Senior Database Administrator > Careerbuilder.com > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > www.sqlpass.org > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:31A753BE-7610-4FCB-AC5C-91CB8CF4083A@microsoft.com... > > Geoff, > > > > Thanks for your reply. So, with what we have (2 Windows Server 2003, > > enterprise Edition, 1 Windows Server 2003 Standard Domain Controller, one > > server with SATA RAID capability, currently with no OS, and Gigabit > Ethernet > > infrastructure), what do you think we could do to get SQL server > redundancy? > > Do we need more equipment? > > > > Thanks again, > > > > --acorn > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > > > You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a NAS > box > > > for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many experience > > > stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such as > the > > > EMC CX-300 or 500 model. > > > > > > -- > > > Geoff N. Hiten > > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > Senior Database Administrator > > > Careerbuilder.com > > > > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > > > www.sqlpass.org > > > > > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a > > > > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We > > > > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding > good > > > > information on how to implement this. > > > > > > > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, > > > > which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL > > > > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain > > > > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, > > > > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with > > > > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to > run? > > > > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use > anything > > > > that can do SMB sharing? > > > > > > > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. > > > > > > > > --acorn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a NAS box
for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many experience stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such as the EMC CX-300 or 500 model. -- Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP Senior Database Administrator Careerbuilder.com I support the Professional Association for SQL Server www.sqlpass.org [quoted text, click to view] "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... > Hi all, > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding good > information on how to implement this. > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, > which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to run? > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use anything > that can do SMB sharing? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. > > --acorn >
You need a clustered SQL solution and lots of training. Any of the major
hardware vendors can help you build a SQL cluster. Do-it-yourself clusters are not recommend and not supported. There is a specific Cluster Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) and the entire solution must be cluster certified. Otherwise, incompatibility issues will likely cause more availability issues than clustering will buy you. You can build a SCSI-based cluster, but I strongly discourage that for several reasons. Again, a smallish SAN is probably your best solution. FInd either a local vendor that has a good reputation OR go with one of the major national players. Also, look into training. High Availability is not a hardware-only solution. People, Procedures, and Mind-set are far more important. -- Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP Senior Database Administrator Careerbuilder.com I support the Professional Association for SQL Server www.sqlpass.org [quoted text, click to view] "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:31A753BE-7610-4FCB-AC5C-91CB8CF4083A@microsoft.com... > Geoff, > > Thanks for your reply. So, with what we have (2 Windows Server 2003, > enterprise Edition, 1 Windows Server 2003 Standard Domain Controller, one > server with SATA RAID capability, currently with no OS, and Gigabit Ethernet > infrastructure), what do you think we could do to get SQL server redundancy? > Do we need more equipment? > > Thanks again, > > --acorn > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a NAS box > > for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many experience > > stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such as the > > EMC CX-300 or 500 model. > > > > -- > > Geoff N. Hiten > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Senior Database Administrator > > Careerbuilder.com > > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > > www.sqlpass.org > > > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a > > > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We > > > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding good > > > information on how to implement this. > > > > > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, > > > which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL > > > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain > > > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, > > > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with > > > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to run? > > > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use anything > > > that can do SMB sharing? > > > > > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. > > > > > > --acorn > > > > > > > > >
I wasn''t trying to insult you. I was trying, at least within the
limitations of a NNTP post, to point out that High Availability is not a magic box you can buy or some software you can load on your servers. HA takes a specific approach to find and eliminate the barriers to availability. Training is often forgotten in the rush to implement a cluster. As for your hardware, you don't have the pieces for a cluster. You might be able to do something with a log shipped standby server. Feel free to try to turn your stuff into a cluster, just don't expect it to be a highly available, decently performing system. -- Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP Senior Database Administrator Careerbuilder.com I support the Professional Association for SQL Server www.sqlpass.org [quoted text, click to view] "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BFB40D6E-2080-4AB0-BDDA-41402061291A@microsoft.com... > Yes, I do need lots of training. However, I have been put, or put myself, in > a position where I need information NOW. The software company is going to > take care of the SQL part, they say. All I need to do is have the servers set > up, and whatever needs to happen with the cluster so they can do their part. > > Unfortunately, the hardware and software HAS already been purchased, so that > is what we have. I don't beleive that it can't be done, but if you prefer not > to help with specifics, suit yourself. > > Thanks, anyways, for your replies > > --acorn > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > You need a clustered SQL solution and lots of training. Any of the major > > hardware vendors can help you build a SQL cluster. Do-it-yourself clusters > > are not recommend and not supported. There is a specific Cluster Hardware > > Compatibility List (HCL) and the entire solution must be cluster certified. > > Otherwise, incompatibility issues will likely cause more availability issues > > than clustering will buy you. You can build a SCSI-based cluster, but I > > strongly discourage that for several reasons. Again, a smallish SAN is > > probably your best solution. FInd either a local vendor that has a good > > reputation OR go with one of the major national players. Also, look into > > training. High Availability is not a hardware-only solution. People, > > Procedures, and Mind-set are far more important. > > > > -- > > Geoff N. Hiten > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > Senior Database Administrator > > Careerbuilder.com > > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > > www.sqlpass.org > > > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:31A753BE-7610-4FCB-AC5C-91CB8CF4083A@microsoft.com... > > > Geoff, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. So, with what we have (2 Windows Server 2003, > > > enterprise Edition, 1 Windows Server 2003 Standard Domain Controller, one > > > server with SATA RAID capability, currently with no OS, and Gigabit > > Ethernet > > > infrastructure), what do you think we could do to get SQL server > > redundancy? > > > Do we need more equipment? > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > --acorn > > > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > > > > > You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a NAS > > box > > > > for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many experience > > > > stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such as > > the > > > > EMC CX-300 or 500 model. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Geoff N. Hiten > > > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > Senior Database Administrator > > > > Careerbuilder.com > > > > > > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > > > > www.sqlpass.org > > > > > > > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > > news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a > > > > > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). We > > > > > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble finding > > good > > > > > information on how to implement this. > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller, > > > > > which also runs all their software. The new software requires msSQL > > > > > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as Domain > > > > > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, > > > > > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server with > > > > > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have to > > run? > > > > > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use > > anything > > > > > that can do SMB sharing? > > > > > > > > > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. > > > > > > > > > > --acorn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
I agree 100% with Geoff. The time to ask these questions was before you
purchased the hardware. You can't fault Geoff for not being able to create an acceptable cluster out of components that are not designed for clustering. Clustering is one of if not the most picky and problematic things you can do with windows and an app like SQL Server on top of it. Trying to cluster with equipment that is not on the clustering HCL is just asking for trouble and lots of pain and suffering on your part. It is better to regroup now and take what ever losses you may have as they will only get worse if you proceed with the wrong equipment. -- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Opws0do$EHA.3424@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >I wasn''t trying to insult you. I was trying, at least within the > limitations of a NNTP post, to point out that High Availability is not a > magic box you can buy or some software you can load on your servers. HA > takes a specific approach to find and eliminate the barriers to > availability. Training is often forgotten in the rush to implement a > cluster. > > As for your hardware, you don't have the pieces for a cluster. You might > be > able to do something with a log shipped standby server. Feel free to try > to > turn your stuff into a cluster, just don't expect it to be a highly > available, decently performing system. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Senior Database Administrator > Careerbuilder.com > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server > www.sqlpass.org > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:BFB40D6E-2080-4AB0-BDDA-41402061291A@microsoft.com... >> Yes, I do need lots of training. However, I have been put, or put myself, > in >> a position where I need information NOW. The software company is going to >> take care of the SQL part, they say. All I need to do is have the servers > set >> up, and whatever needs to happen with the cluster so they can do their > part. >> >> Unfortunately, the hardware and software HAS already been purchased, so > that >> is what we have. I don't beleive that it can't be done, but if you prefer > not >> to help with specifics, suit yourself. >> >> Thanks, anyways, for your replies >> >> --acorn >> >> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: >> >> > You need a clustered SQL solution and lots of training. Any of the > major >> > hardware vendors can help you build a SQL cluster. Do-it-yourself > clusters >> > are not recommend and not supported. There is a specific Cluster > Hardware >> > Compatibility List (HCL) and the entire solution must be cluster > certified. >> > Otherwise, incompatibility issues will likely cause more availability > issues >> > than clustering will buy you. You can build a SCSI-based cluster, but >> > I >> > strongly discourage that for several reasons. Again, a smallish SAN is >> > probably your best solution. FInd either a local vendor that has a >> > good >> > reputation OR go with one of the major national players. Also, look > into >> > training. High Availability is not a hardware-only solution. People, >> > Procedures, and Mind-set are far more important. >> > >> > -- >> > Geoff N. Hiten >> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> > Senior Database Administrator >> > Careerbuilder.com >> > >> > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server >> > www.sqlpass.org >> > >> > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > news:31A753BE-7610-4FCB-AC5C-91CB8CF4083A@microsoft.com... >> > > Geoff, >> > > >> > > Thanks for your reply. So, with what we have (2 Windows Server 2003, >> > > enterprise Edition, 1 Windows Server 2003 Standard Domain Controller, > one >> > > server with SATA RAID capability, currently with no OS, and Gigabit >> > Ethernet >> > > infrastructure), what do you think we could do to get SQL server >> > redundancy? >> > > Do we need more equipment? >> > > >> > > Thanks again, >> > > >> > > --acorn >> > > >> > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: >> > > >> > > > You cannot use a NAS to cluster SQL server. You should not use a > NAS >> > box >> > > > for back-end SQL storage, but some people do anyway. Many > experience >> > > > stability and/or performacne problems. I suggest a small SAN such > as >> > the >> > > > EMC CX-300 or 500 model. >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Geoff N. Hiten >> > > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> > > > Senior Database Administrator >> > > > Careerbuilder.com >> > > > >> > > > I support the Professional Association for SQL Server >> > > > www.sqlpass.org >> > > > >> > > > "acorn" <acorn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > > > news:81B66174-10CD-4C95-A9E5-0CB8DAAE8B8B@microsoft.com... >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > >> > > > > I am new to server clustering and SQL Server, and have a >> > > > > client that needs his server to be up 24/7 (911 Dispatch center). > We >> > > > > have proposed a Windows/SQL Cluster, but I'm having trouble > finding >> > good >> > > > > information on how to implement this. >> > > > > >> > > > > Currently, the client has one Windows Server 2003 Domain > Controller, >> > > > > which also runs all their software. The new software requires > msSQL >> > > > > server. What we are proposing is to leave the current server as > Domain >> > > > > Controller, and Purchase two new servers (Windows Server 2003, >> > > > > Enterprise) and a NAS unit (actually just a barebones file server > with >> > > > > SATA/RAID 5. My main question is this: What OS does the NAT have > to >> > run? >> > > > > Does it have to be a MS Server Operating system, or can we use >> > anything >> > > > > that can do SMB sharing? >> > > > > >> > > > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give. >> > > > > >> > > > > --acorn >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |