|
|
You're in the
sql server clustering
group:SQL 7.0 on Windows 2000
sql server clustering:
Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can answer my
question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently they are clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a step at a time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using microsoft clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my SQL7.0 virtual server the same as the cluster. We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the server and
Okay, just for a little clarification for myself,
We are in AD so if this was the setup: physical01 physical02 - both clusteres to virtual03 ip of 192.168.0.1 (example only) sqlvirtual04 ip of 192.168.0.2,1433 (example only) If i went into DNS and setup a record to point 192.168.0.1 to sqlvirtual04 then the shares could be mapped as \\sqlvirtual04\d_drive and sql would still be registered as sqlvirtual04? Let me know if this is what you were referring to? Since the client doesn't know if the shares were being used on the original sql server, I would like to leave name the virtual sql the same as the original, but allow drives to be mapped also. [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I wouldn't even try and give them the same names. I would use a DNS srv > record to repoint the old name to the new system (assuming an AD > infrastructure). This has the advantage that you can turn it off and on at > will to test. If you have only one or two client app servers, you can do > the same thing with a client network alias. > > Geoff N. Hiten > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:C3FB92A5-3D23-42BE-94FA-9F23ECB5C44B@microsoft.com... > > Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can answer my > > question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently they > > are > > clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a step at > > a > > time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using microsoft > > clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my SQL7.0 > > virtual server the same as the cluster. > > We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the server and > > they are not sure if any is mapping to the cluster at this time. > >
Sorry for the confusion... sql will not be using the file shares. but
individuals may be using them... ie. copy some data over to the windows share and then use dts to load the data. So with legato, and I don't know much about it, the user would map a drive to \\servername\d_drive and then copy it over. since it was a default instance the sql had the same name as the server. Now with MSCS we have a two physical servers, nodea and nodeb, the get clustered and given the name of the old server <servername> from above. The user would map drive to \\servername\d_drive and copy the file as before. But now I have virtual sql that doesn't have the same name as before <servername> from above. Since the customer isn't sure about the use of the file shares I would like to be able to have people still connect to sql server using <servername> as before with legato. but I have already used that name for the windows cluster name. That is my true dilemna, will this work using DNS and pointing the old server name and port 1433 to the new sql virtual name? Thanks for the assitance Geoff. [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> File shares and SQL Server services are two different issues. You can alias > a SQL server many ways, including DNS records and Client aliases. Resolving > share names is a different issue. A SQL Server 2000 system normally doesn't > use file shares, except in replication snapshot resolution. Also, the SRV > record includes a service name and an IP address and a port number. > Normally, these records are registered by the service so other systems can > find it. This is how AD finds its various management roles "under the > covers". > > GNH > > > "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:A4AA339C-5740-4481-86D6-CD048F459E74@microsoft.com... > > Okay, just for a little clarification for myself, > > We are in AD so if this was the setup: > > physical01 > > physical02 - both clusteres to virtual03 ip of 192.168.0.1 (example only) > > sqlvirtual04 ip of 192.168.0.2,1433 (example only) > > > > If i went into DNS and setup a record to point 192.168.0.1 to sqlvirtual04 > > then the shares could be mapped as \\sqlvirtual04\d_drive > > and sql would still be registered as sqlvirtual04? > > > > Let me know if this is what you were referring to? > > Since the client doesn't know if the shares were being used on the > > original > > sql server, I would like to leave name the virtual sql the same as the > > original, but allow drives to be mapped also. > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > >> I wouldn't even try and give them the same names. I would use a DNS srv > >> record to repoint the old name to the new system (assuming an AD > >> infrastructure). This has the advantage that you can turn it off and on > >> at > >> will to test. If you have only one or two client app servers, you can do > >> the same thing with a client network alias. > >> > >> Geoff N. Hiten > >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP > >> > >> > >> "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:C3FB92A5-3D23-42BE-94FA-9F23ECB5C44B@microsoft.com... > >> > Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can answer > >> > my > >> > question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently > >> > they > >> > are > >> > clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a step > >> > at > >> > a > >> > time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using > >> > microsoft > >> > clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my > >> > SQL7.0 > >> > virtual server the same as the cluster. > >> > We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the server > >> > and > >> > they are not sure if any is mapping to the cluster at this time. > >> > >> > >> > >
I wouldn't even try and give them the same names. I would use a DNS srv
record to repoint the old name to the new system (assuming an AD infrastructure). This has the advantage that you can turn it off and on at will to test. If you have only one or two client app servers, you can do the same thing with a client network alias. Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C3FB92A5-3D23-42BE-94FA-9F23ECB5C44B@microsoft.com... > Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can answer my > question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently they > are > clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a step at > a > time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using microsoft > clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my SQL7.0 > virtual server the same as the cluster. > We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the server and > they are not sure if any is mapping to the cluster at this time.
File shares and SQL Server services are two different issues. You can alias
a SQL server many ways, including DNS records and Client aliases. Resolving share names is a different issue. A SQL Server 2000 system normally doesn't use file shares, except in replication snapshot resolution. Also, the SRV record includes a service name and an IP address and a port number. Normally, these records are registered by the service so other systems can find it. This is how AD finds its various management roles "under the covers". GNH [quoted text, click to view] "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A4AA339C-5740-4481-86D6-CD048F459E74@microsoft.com... > Okay, just for a little clarification for myself, > We are in AD so if this was the setup: > physical01 > physical02 - both clusteres to virtual03 ip of 192.168.0.1 (example only) > sqlvirtual04 ip of 192.168.0.2,1433 (example only) > > If i went into DNS and setup a record to point 192.168.0.1 to sqlvirtual04 > then the shares could be mapped as \\sqlvirtual04\d_drive > and sql would still be registered as sqlvirtual04? > > Let me know if this is what you were referring to? > Since the client doesn't know if the shares were being used on the > original > sql server, I would like to leave name the virtual sql the same as the > original, but allow drives to be mapped also. > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> I wouldn't even try and give them the same names. I would use a DNS srv >> record to repoint the old name to the new system (assuming an AD >> infrastructure). This has the advantage that you can turn it off and on >> at >> will to test. If you have only one or two client app servers, you can do >> the same thing with a client network alias. >> >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:C3FB92A5-3D23-42BE-94FA-9F23ECB5C44B@microsoft.com... >> > Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can answer >> > my >> > question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently >> > they >> > are >> > clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a step >> > at >> > a >> > time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using >> > microsoft >> > clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my >> > SQL7.0 >> > virtual server the same as the cluster. >> > We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the server >> > and >> > they are not sure if any is mapping to the cluster at this time. >> >> >>
You can create a clustered file share and group it with the SQL server
instance so it follows along with the cluster from node to node. Another way would be for you to set up a remote file share on a non-clustered instance and use a UNC name to connect DTS with the data file. If you already have used the old name for your cluster, you will have huge problems with a DNS alias You may even prevent the cluster from coming online. You probably need to nuke the cluster and rebuild it from scratch using entirely new names. Then you can use alias techniques via DNS or Client tools. Port 1433 is not an issue. Both the DNS record and the Client Network utility will allow you to specify a port number as part of the alias. If the file share is in the same virtual server group, you will use the same network name for both, simplifying the mapping process. Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:7A9F8F28-E75E-41D3-B19B-E8415234CBB6@microsoft.com... > Sorry for the confusion... sql will not be using the file shares. but > individuals may be using them... ie. copy some data over to the windows > share and then use dts to load the data. > > So with legato, and I don't know much about it, the user would map a drive > to \\servername\d_drive and then copy it over. since it was a default > instance the sql had the same name as the server. > > Now with MSCS we have a two physical servers, nodea and nodeb, the get > clustered and given the name of the old server <servername> from above. > The > user would map drive to \\servername\d_drive and copy the file as before. > > But now I have virtual sql that doesn't have the same name as before > <servername> from above. Since the customer isn't sure about the use of > the > file shares I would like to be able to have people still connect to sql > server using <servername> as before with legato. but I have already used > that name for the windows cluster name. > > That is my true dilemna, will this work using DNS and pointing the old > server name and port 1433 to the new sql virtual name? > > Thanks for the assitance Geoff. > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> File shares and SQL Server services are two different issues. You can >> alias >> a SQL server many ways, including DNS records and Client aliases. >> Resolving >> share names is a different issue. A SQL Server 2000 system normally >> doesn't >> use file shares, except in replication snapshot resolution. Also, the >> SRV >> record includes a service name and an IP address and a port number. >> Normally, these records are registered by the service so other systems >> can >> find it. This is how AD finds its various management roles "under the >> covers". >> >> GNH >> >> >> "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:A4AA339C-5740-4481-86D6-CD048F459E74@microsoft.com... >> > Okay, just for a little clarification for myself, >> > We are in AD so if this was the setup: >> > physical01 >> > physical02 - both clusteres to virtual03 ip of 192.168.0.1 (example >> > only) >> > sqlvirtual04 ip of 192.168.0.2,1433 (example only) >> > >> > If i went into DNS and setup a record to point 192.168.0.1 to >> > sqlvirtual04 >> > then the shares could be mapped as \\sqlvirtual04\d_drive >> > and sql would still be registered as sqlvirtual04? >> > >> > Let me know if this is what you were referring to? >> > Since the client doesn't know if the shares were being used on the >> > original >> > sql server, I would like to leave name the virtual sql the same as the >> > original, but allow drives to be mapped also. >> > >> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: >> > >> >> I wouldn't even try and give them the same names. I would use a DNS >> >> srv >> >> record to repoint the old name to the new system (assuming an AD >> >> infrastructure). This has the advantage that you can turn it off and >> >> on >> >> at >> >> will to test. If you have only one or two client app servers, you can >> >> do >> >> the same thing with a client network alias. >> >> >> >> Geoff N. Hiten >> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> >> >> >> "Thom" <Thom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> >> news:C3FB92A5-3D23-42BE-94FA-9F23ECB5C44B@microsoft.com... >> >> > Okay go ahead and shred me now, and then please see if you can >> >> > answer >> >> > my >> >> > question. I have a client that is living in the dark ages. Currently >> >> > they >> >> > are >> >> > clustered on NT4.0 and SQL 7.0 using legato. We are moving them a >> >> > step >> >> > at >> >> > a >> >> > time to SQL 2000/Windows 2003 clustering. W2k and SQL7.0 using >> >> > microsoft >> >> > clustering is the first baby step. I need to know if I can name my >> >> > SQL7.0 >> >> > virtual server the same as the cluster. >> >> > We are trying to have minimal impact on the apps, that hit the >> >> > server >> >> > and >> >> > they are not sure if any is mapping to the cluster at this time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
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 |