"craig_amtdatatechnologies@discussions.mi" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reply, certainly helpful :)
>
> I note the need for clarity in nomenclature, correction welcome.
>
> If your (or anyone else), were to put names (not brands) to the bits, what
> nomenclature should I be using to described the various components and bits
> connecting them together?
>
> Basically, my knowledge of storage systems is pretty weak (as you wil lhave
> guessed) ... so I need a connector out the back of my sql boxes (a bit of
> fibre ... 1 or 2 bits each?), something to plug the fibre cables into (an
> array), some disks to stick in the array. If fibre connector is used, do
> these disks need to be anything special?
>
> Sorry for noddy style questions ... !!
>
>
> Thanks again
>
>
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
> > Lets see.
> >
> > x64 is definitely the best bang for the buck in the range you are looking
> > at. More memory will help. Put in as much as the box can hold.
> >
> > Obligatory naming rant: Active/Passive really doesn't describe how things
> > work. You are building a two-node, single-instance cluster. That
> > nomenclature is much more accurate and it scales. (Try describing a cluster
> > with 6 nodes and 12 instances using the words "active" and "passive".)
> >
> > One very important consideration when building a cluster is to use some type
> > of smart array or a true SAN. The key is that the disk cache must reside in
> > the array, not on an onboard controller. Controller write cache is always
> > disabled in a clustered setting to maintain data consistency.
> >
> > If performance is key, then RAID 1+0 is the configuration you want. Don't
> > worry about swap files, a properly configured dedicated SQL server should
> > not have any significnt paging activity. Do split tempdb onto its own fast
> > disk set.
> >
> > As for connections, I strongly prefer fibre channel where possible. First,
> > it is a full-duplex data path so you can read and write at the same time.
> > SCSI is a bus so a large checkpoint can hammer read performance. Second,
> > you can only have two nodes in the cluster with SCSI. I am also very
> > reluctant to unplug a SCSI cable on a downed node should I need to repair
> > something. Not so much with a fibre channel connector.
> >
> > You can always bolt mirroring on top of clustering for some geographic
> > separation. Choosing one does not necessarily eliminate the other.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "craig_amtdatatechnologies@discussions.mi"
> > <craigamtdatatechnologiesdiscussionsmi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message news:130DBB73-7072-4E58-A36D-DFCD35CC6057@microsoft.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are looking into implementing an Active:Passive SQL 2005 Cluster for a
> > > reasonably large and important system (< 1Tb)
> > >
> > > I'm not looking for advice re: particular brand etc., but on advice on
> > > type
> > > / type of connection to SAN that may be appropriate. The SQL 2005
> > > instance(s)
> > > will be x64.
> > >
> > > Please, any wannabe MVPs do not provide sarcastic/useless answers just to
> > > up
> > > your profile. To pre-empt some of these:-
> > >
> > > Yes I have indexes on current database
> > > Yes the queries have been tuned
> > > Yes, I have detailed stats on usage, performance, but you do not need
> > > these to answer the general thrust of the question
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Now, I went through the Dell SQL configurator to see what they came up
> > > with
> > > .... they suggested £50k would be a reasonable price ... maybe it is,
> > > maybe
> > > it isn't. This had all manner fancy fibre connection things, disks at
> > > £1000
> > > each, other buzzers and bells. I wonder if I really need all this?
> > >
> > > Basic setup is 2 * servers (Windows 2003 R2, standard, x64), spec'd
> > > (each):-
> > >
> > > 1 * Quad-core CPU
> > > 2 * 15,000rpm disks (RAID 1) for O/S and SQL program files etc. (and
> > > swap files)
> > > 8Gb RAM
> > > Network cards, etc.
> > >
> > > I would like, an external disk array to hold database drives (pretty
> > > essential really for a cluster!), of roughly the following format (each
> > > physical disk probably 146Gb capacity):-
> > >
> > > 2 * 15,000 rpm RAID 1 (tempdb)
> > > 2 * 15,000 rpm RAID 1 (transaction logs)
> > > At least 6 (probably more) * 15,000 rpm Stripped and Mirrored for main
> > > database files
> > >
> > > What sort of storage kit/spec. (fibre? not fibre? etc. ???) should I be
> > > looking for to support the cluster? ie. what will do, not what do HP/Dell
> > > etc. wish to sell me.
> > >
> > > Yes the system wil grow over time.
> > >
> > > One last thing ...
> > >
> > > There may be alternative solutions to an Active:Passive cluster, but some
> > > big name players (financial/multinational etc.) are using the system, and
> > > we
> > > need to do some serious bomb-proofing.
> > >
> > > I would prefer to have a single high-performance cluster, to reduce number
> > > of requried SQL licences (sorry Bill!), and also avoid having to maintain
> > > too
> > > many live copies of the database (yes Mirroring is a cool technology, but
> > > maybe not for me at this moment in time?)
> > >
> > > Surely an Active:Passive Cluster (even if x64) with external array is such
> > > a
> > > basic setup these days, that kit for this is fairly standard?
> > >
> > > Thank you for reading this, and thanks in advance for any constructive
> > > anwers/pointers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >