| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : Cluster group and group 0
This is a SQL2005 active/passive cluster. We noticed that doing a manual failover on Group0 works fine (group0 has all the SQL volumes, service, and name). There is also a cluster group, which has the Cluster IP, Name, Q:\ volume (quorum), and the MSDTC. When we manually fail Group0, the seperate entity Cluster Group does not failover along with it. So the resources each are responsible for are mixed between the new active server and the current passive server that was active before the failover. We have a SQL2000 cluster that fails both groups when a failover is initiated on just Group0. Is there a way to tie them together? Should they be tied together? Also can anyone tell me if there is a significance between having both a SQL server virtual IP and a cluster virtual IP? This new SQL2005 cluster has this, but our SQL2000 cluster only has a single IP.
The cluster group is exactly what the name implies. It is the cluster
resource that manages the rest of the cluster resource groups. Technically it exists so the node that owns that resources breaks all ties in resource arbitration. As a practical matter, it is unrelated to the normal operation of the SQL group, however it must be operating or in a valid transition state for all the other cluster resources to run. I usually leave it on an unoccupied node, just so I know where it is. You most definitely do not want to tie this to the SQL resource group. You won't gain anything and you may break something important. A true failure will likely result in both groups moving independently to the remaining node, even though they are not tied together. BTW, I rename my cluster groups to match the SQL instance name. This really helps on multi-instance clusters. If your SQL 2000 cluster has only one group and one IP address, someone built it wrong. It should have separate groups for the cluster and for the SQL instance. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:EF5EF3A9-76B1-45CE-91B4-630DD01D8566@microsoft.com... > > This is a SQL2005 active/passive cluster. > > We noticed that doing a manual failover on Group0 works fine (group0 has > all > the SQL volumes, service, and name). There is also a cluster group, which > has the Cluster IP, Name, Q:\ volume (quorum), and the MSDTC. When we > manually fail Group0, the seperate entity Cluster Group does not failover > along with it. So the resources each are responsible for are mixed > between > the new active server and the current passive server that was active > before > the failover. > > We have a SQL2000 cluster that fails both groups when a failover is > initiated on just Group0. > > Is there a way to tie them together? Should they be tied together? > > Also can anyone tell me if there is a significance between having both a > SQL > server virtual IP and a cluster virtual IP? This new SQL2005 cluster has > this, but our SQL2000 cluster only has a single IP. > > Thanks!
The only thing that confuses me is the fact that the MSDTC and the drive that
the Quorum resides on are in the cluster group, while all the SQL resources are in the other group. When I want to fail over to work on one of the servers, then common sense says I need to fail both groups over so that I can reboot the passive one after making changes. Only moving the SQL application will leave my quorum and MSDTC with a server that is getting patched/updated/etc. With our SQL2000 cluster, there are 2 seperate groups just as on the 2005 cluster. The only difference is when I force a failover on Group0, both Group0 AND the cluster group moves at the same time. That way the cluster group is not stranded on a server that will be under construction. The 2000 cluster has the cluster resources in cluster group and the SQL resources in Group0 just as the 2005 cluster has. Is there a particular reason why 2 IP's are a good thing? Is it so that you can communicate to the cluster via TCP/IP without having to interact with the SQL virtual IP and create more traffic? Keep in mind, these 2 IP's are both outward facing and 1 responds to the SQL virtual IP and the other responds to the Windows cluster virtual IP. I am not talking about the private network that connects the servers together for heartbeat as one of the IP's. [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> The cluster group is exactly what the name implies. It is the cluster > resource that manages the rest of the cluster resource groups. Technically > it exists so the node that owns that resources breaks all ties in resource > arbitration. As a practical matter, it is unrelated to the normal operation > of the SQL group, however it must be operating or in a valid transition > state for all the other cluster resources to run. I usually leave it on an > unoccupied node, just so I know where it is. You most definitely do not > want to tie this to the SQL resource group. You won't gain anything and you > may break something important. A true failure will likely result in both > groups moving independently to the remaining node, even though they are not > tied together. > > BTW, I rename my cluster groups to match the SQL instance name. This really > helps on multi-instance clusters. > > If your SQL 2000 cluster has only one group and one IP address, someone > built it wrong. It should have separate groups for the cluster and for the > SQL instance. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Senior Database Administrator > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:EF5EF3A9-76B1-45CE-91B4-630DD01D8566@microsoft.com... > > > > This is a SQL2005 active/passive cluster. > > > > We noticed that doing a manual failover on Group0 works fine (group0 has > > all > > the SQL volumes, service, and name). There is also a cluster group, which > > has the Cluster IP, Name, Q:\ volume (quorum), and the MSDTC. When we > > manually fail Group0, the seperate entity Cluster Group does not failover > > along with it. So the resources each are responsible for are mixed > > between > > the new active server and the current passive server that was active > > before > > the failover. > > > > We have a SQL2000 cluster that fails both groups when a failover is > > initiated on just Group0. > > > > Is there a way to tie them together? Should they be tied together? > > > > Also can anyone tell me if there is a significance between having both a > > SQL > > server virtual IP and a cluster virtual IP? This new SQL2005 cluster has > > this, but our SQL2000 cluster only has a single IP. > > > > Thanks! > >
Odd. Your SQL 2000 system should not move both groups when only one is
force failed. Unless you are failing the entire node rather than the group. If you take a node offline, all resource groups hosted on it will fail over. As for your SQL 2005 cluster, if the node being upgraded goes offline during the upgrade, the group will failover anyway. It is still a good idea to move all groups to the other node before performing an OS upgrade or patch. You can use the cluster.exe command in a script to force move them together. As for the two IPs, that is just an artifact of Windows Clustering. Each resource group with a disk, IP address, and Network name becoms a virtual server. You use the cluster name to connect to the Cluster itself and the SQL Virtual Server name to connect to the SQL instance. If you add new instances, they get their own virtual servers. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C7BE22C1-8554-4F97-9D2B-78ED3B2B3DBA@microsoft.com... > The only thing that confuses me is the fact that the MSDTC and the drive > that > the Quorum resides on are in the cluster group, while all the SQL > resources > are in the other group. When I want to fail over to work on one of the > servers, then common sense says I need to fail both groups over so that I > can > reboot the passive one after making changes. Only moving the SQL > application > will leave my quorum and MSDTC with a server that is getting > patched/updated/etc. > > With our SQL2000 cluster, there are 2 seperate groups just as on the 2005 > cluster. The only difference is when I force a failover on Group0, both > Group0 AND the cluster group moves at the same time. That way the cluster > group is not stranded on a server that will be under construction. The > 2000 > cluster has the cluster resources in cluster group and the SQL resources > in > Group0 just as the 2005 cluster has. > > Is there a particular reason why 2 IP's are a good thing? Is it so that > you > can communicate to the cluster via TCP/IP without having to interact with > the > SQL virtual IP and create more traffic? Keep in mind, these 2 IP's are > both > outward facing and 1 responds to the SQL virtual IP and the other responds > to > the Windows cluster virtual IP. I am not talking about the private > network > that connects the servers together for heartbeat as one of the IP's. > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> The cluster group is exactly what the name implies. It is the cluster >> resource that manages the rest of the cluster resource groups. >> Technically >> it exists so the node that owns that resources breaks all ties in >> resource >> arbitration. As a practical matter, it is unrelated to the normal >> operation >> of the SQL group, however it must be operating or in a valid transition >> state for all the other cluster resources to run. I usually leave it on >> an >> unoccupied node, just so I know where it is. You most definitely do not >> want to tie this to the SQL resource group. You won't gain anything and >> you >> may break something important. A true failure will likely result in both >> groups moving independently to the remaining node, even though they are >> not >> tied together. >> >> BTW, I rename my cluster groups to match the SQL instance name. This >> really >> helps on multi-instance clusters. >> >> If your SQL 2000 cluster has only one group and one IP address, someone >> built it wrong. It should have separate groups for the cluster and for >> the >> SQL instance. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Senior Database Administrator >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> >> "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:EF5EF3A9-76B1-45CE-91B4-630DD01D8566@microsoft.com... >> > >> > This is a SQL2005 active/passive cluster. >> > >> > We noticed that doing a manual failover on Group0 works fine (group0 >> > has >> > all >> > the SQL volumes, service, and name). There is also a cluster group, >> > which >> > has the Cluster IP, Name, Q:\ volume (quorum), and the MSDTC. When we >> > manually fail Group0, the seperate entity Cluster Group does not >> > failover >> > along with it. So the resources each are responsible for are mixed >> > between >> > the new active server and the current passive server that was active >> > before >> > the failover. >> > >> > We have a SQL2000 cluster that fails both groups when a failover is >> > initiated on just Group0. >> > >> > Is there a way to tie them together? Should they be tied together? >> > >> > Also can anyone tell me if there is a significance between having both >> > a >> > SQL >> > server virtual IP and a cluster virtual IP? This new SQL2005 cluster >> > has >> > this, but our SQL2000 cluster only has a single IP. >> > >> > Thanks! >> >> >>
[quoted text, click to view]
"skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C7BE22C1-8554-4F97-9D2B-78ED3B2B3DBA@microsoft.com... > The only thing that confuses me is the fact that the MSDTC and the drive > that > the Quorum resides on are in the cluster group, while all the SQL > resources > are in the other group. So? This is no big deal. [quoted text, click to view] > When I want to fail over to work on one of the > servers, then common sense says I need to fail both groups over so that I > can > reboot the passive one after making changes. Yes, that makes perfect sense. [quoted text, click to view] > With our SQL2000 cluster, there are 2 seperate groups just as on the 2005 > cluster. The only difference is when I force a failover on Group0, both > Group0 AND the cluster group moves at the same time. That way the cluster > group is not stranded on a server that will be under construction. The > 2000 > cluster has the cluster resources in cluster group and the SQL resources > in > Group0 just as the 2005 cluster has. This is not a good idea. Let's face one simple fact, it takes a matter of seconds to manually move the default cluster group and the MSDTC contained in it. Don't sweat the small stuff like this tiny bit of administration. [quoted text, click to view] > Is there a particular reason why 2 IP's are a good thing? It is a required thing... One IP to be assigned to the cluster name and one for the virtual server hosting SQL. -- Russ Kaufmann MVP - Windows Server - Clustering ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner Web http://www.clusterhelp.com Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
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 |