"RK" <RK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C91E92BB-0C97-44CE-AC35-D426D9C92F5F@microsoft.com...
> Hi Geoff,
>
> What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4
> SQl
> server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000
> based
> and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
>
> Cheers
> Rajeev
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>> You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of
>> differing
>> versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
>> independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a
>> subset
>> of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
>> just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
>>
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "RK" <RK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
>> > between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
>> > intended
>> > there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
>> > databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active
>> > it
>> > will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
>> > question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
>> > technically ?
>> >
>> > Many thanks in advance.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically,
>> >> Active/Active
>> >> does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that
>> >> existed
>> >> for
>> >> SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
>> >> balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "RK" <RK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@microsoft.com...
>> >> > Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our
>> >> > production
>> >> > environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a
>> >> > dedicated
>> >> > server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the
>> >> > other
>> >> > ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server
>> >> > 2005,
>> >> > side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server
>> >> > hardware
>> >> > into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the
>> >> > performance
>> >> > is
>> >> > not
>> >> > affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to
>> >> > have
>> >> > both
>> >> > a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this
>> >> > new
>> >> > hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl
>> >> > servers
>> >> > will
>> >> > be
>> >> > presented via a SAN.
>> >> >
>> >> > (1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
>> >> > (2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the
>> >> > SQL
>> >> > 2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
>> >> > (3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered
>> >> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> > SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
>> >> >
>> >> > If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases
>> >> > will
>> >> > be
>> >> > load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases
>> >> > will
>> >> > be
>> >> > load
>> >> > balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of
>> >> > the
>> >> > SQl
>> >> > 2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will
>> >> > be
>> >> > upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl
>> >> > 2005
>> >> > Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
>> >> >
>> >> > Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts
>> >> > are
>> >> > welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
>> >> > Many Thanks in advance.
>> >> >
>> >> > RK
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>