| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : SQL 2005 cluster
We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with one instance of SQL 2005 and 150 GB of SAN disk. This is considered the production node with failover to the second node (Passive). The passive node also has 8 GB of RAM, 150 GB of SAN disk, and has 4 local test instances of SQL 2005, and the failover production instance. We think that we will need to limit the 4 instances to 5 GB of RAM (Local Instance 1 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 2 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 3 - 1 GB, Local Instance 4 - 1GB). This will leave us 2 GB for the failover instance and 1 GB for the OS. For extended outages, we would like to be able to shutdown the local instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access more than the 2GB reserved. Questions: - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql and allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are available to allow this configuration? - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local instances each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? - Are their white papers describing best practices? Thanks, don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com
Comments Inline
[quoted text, click to view] "Don.Ramler" <don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message SAN resources are not local per node. The LUNS are presented to all host news:3E7F4C0E-4B4B-4408-8AF0-C6EBA0938EA8@microsoft.com... > Overview: > We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with > one > instance of SQL 2005 and 150 GB of SAN disk. This is considered the > production node with failover to the second node (Passive). > > The passive node also has 8 GB of RAM, 150 GB of SAN disk, and has 4 local > test instances of SQL 2005, and the failover production instance. We > think > that we will need to limit the 4 instances to 5 GB of RAM (Local Instance > 1 - > 1.5 GB, Local Instance 2 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 3 - 1 GB, Local > Instance 4 > - 1GB). This will leave us 2 GB for the failover instance and 1 GB for > the > OS. For extended outages, we would like to be able to shutdown the local > instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access more > than the 2GB reserved. > nodes. The Cluster service arbitrates ownership and control. LUNS are mapped to clustered disk resources and are specific to each SQL instance. [quoted text, click to view] > Questions: There is no technical issue, but there is the general guideline not to mix > - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql and > allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are > available to allow this configuration? production and development/test systems. [quoted text, click to view] > No.. As I mentioned above, the disk resources are tied to a specific > - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local instances > each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? > instance of SQL. You can create a LUN and present it only to the second node. Do not create it as a clustered disk resource and it will look like a locally attached disk. The you can use subfolders for each instance. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] > - Are their white papers describing best practices? > > Thanks, > > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com >
Geoff,
Are there any memory setting guidelines with regard to the multiple instance passive node? Are there any white papers on configurations of this sort? -- Don Ramler [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Comments Inline > > > "Don.Ramler" <don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:3E7F4C0E-4B4B-4408-8AF0-C6EBA0938EA8@microsoft.com... > > Overview: > > We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with > > one > > instance of SQL 2005 and 150 GB of SAN disk. This is considered the > > production node with failover to the second node (Passive). > > > > The passive node also has 8 GB of RAM, 150 GB of SAN disk, and has 4 local > > test instances of SQL 2005, and the failover production instance. We > > think > > that we will need to limit the 4 instances to 5 GB of RAM (Local Instance > > 1 - > > 1.5 GB, Local Instance 2 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 3 - 1 GB, Local > > Instance 4 > > - 1GB). This will leave us 2 GB for the failover instance and 1 GB for > > the > > OS. For extended outages, we would like to be able to shutdown the local > > instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access more > > than the 2GB reserved. > > > SAN resources are not local per node. The LUNS are presented to all host > nodes. The Cluster service arbitrates ownership and control. LUNS are > mapped to clustered disk resources and are specific to each SQL instance. > > Questions: > > - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql and > > allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are > > available to allow this configuration? > There is no technical issue, but there is the general guideline not to mix > production and development/test systems. > > > > - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local instances > > each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? > > > No.. As I mentioned above, the disk resources are tied to a specific > instance of SQL. You can create a LUN and present it only to the second > node. Do not create it as a clustered disk resource and it will look like a > locally attached disk. The you can use subfolders for each instance. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Senior Database Administrator > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > - Are their white papers describing best practices? > > > > Thanks, > > > > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com > > > >
I don't know of any right away. As for "active" and "passive" nodes, all
nodes are equivalent so the choice of current host is arbitrary. You can set it as a preference. Using a normally inactive node as a host for other instances is not recommended, so I doubt there are any references on how to do that. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Don.Ramler" <don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A960E9DD-EBE9-431D-8AA2-69A46B7E0B29@microsoft.com... > Geoff, > > Are there any memory setting guidelines with regard to the multiple > instance > passive node? > > Are there any white papers on configurations of this sort? > -- > Don Ramler > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> Comments Inline >> >> >> "Don.Ramler" <don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:3E7F4C0E-4B4B-4408-8AF0-C6EBA0938EA8@microsoft.com... >> > Overview: >> > We are planning a 2 node cluster. The Active node will be 8 GB RAM with >> > one >> > instance of SQL 2005 and 150 GB of SAN disk. This is considered the >> > production node with failover to the second node (Passive). >> > >> > The passive node also has 8 GB of RAM, 150 GB of SAN disk, and has 4 >> > local >> > test instances of SQL 2005, and the failover production instance. We >> > think >> > that we will need to limit the 4 instances to 5 GB of RAM (Local >> > Instance >> > 1 - >> > 1.5 GB, Local Instance 2 - 1.5 GB, Local Instance 3 - 1 GB, Local >> > Instance 4 >> > - 1GB). This will leave us 2 GB for the failover instance and 1 GB for >> > the >> > OS. For extended outages, we would like to be able to shutdown the >> > local >> > instances of SQL and allow the failover production instance to access >> > more >> > than the 2GB reserved. >> > >> SAN resources are not local per node. The LUNS are presented to all host >> nodes. The Cluster service arbitrates ownership and control. LUNS are >> mapped to clustered disk resources and are specific to each SQL instance. >> > Questions: >> > - On the passive node, are there issues having local instances of sql >> > and >> > allowing for a failover instance? What SQL 2005 memory settings are >> > available to allow this configuration? >> There is no technical issue, but there is the general guideline not to >> mix >> production and development/test systems. >> > >> > - On the passive mode, in the above configuration, can the local >> > instances >> > each point to their own folders in the shared logical drive? >> > >> No.. As I mentioned above, the disk resources are tied to a specific >> instance of SQL. You can create a LUN and present it only to the second >> node. Do not create it as a clustered disk resource and it will look >> like a >> locally attached disk. The you can use subfolders for each instance. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Senior Database Administrator >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> > - Are their white papers describing best practices? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > don.ramler@discussions.microsoft.com >> > >> >> >>
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 |