|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:23 AM
Points: 226,
Visits: 155
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:36 AM
Points: 5,201,
Visits: 11,153
|
|
Just a couple of points
Firstly there is no such thing as an Active\active\active\passive cluster. A cluster is either active\active or active\passive.
Secondly for dev and uat clusters, virtual is the way to go. I have used virtualisation (VMWare server and ESX server) for creating clusters using MSCS and more recently Veritas Cluster Server. Although with the current version of VCS it is somewhat tricky and troublesome, MSCS responds well in a virtual environment. Also, many people on this forum find my "Creating a virtual SQL Server cluster" guide very useful
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:45 AM
Points: 462,
Visits: 643
|
|
| Was the active an genuine UAT environment for end users? I've always been led to believe that UAT required normal license and developer could only be used for actual developer types.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:16 AM
Points: 7,
Visits: 187
|
|
| I would agree that Virtualization is the answer and is cost effective for both the hardware and licensing perspective. If you licence the by ESX host instead of the VM's, it is cheaper. We have a (3) node cluster composed of (3) VM servers. Windows Server 2008 R2 64 bit Enterprise with SQL Server 2008 R2 64 bit Enterprise. It runs perfectly and we use it for UAT Testing. Virtualization also offers an added HA layer as well as having SAN snapshots taken of each volume. We are very happy with the Clustered Virutal Machines we have.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:16 AM
Points: 7,
Visits: 187
|
|
| In addition we also installed (3) SQL Server Instances one on each node so the servers do not get wasted. We plan for capacity to make sure that if a failover is to occur that one node can handle the load by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:26 PM
Points: 1,696,
Visits: 1,742
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:36 AM
Points: 5,201,
Visits: 11,153
|
|
as i said, a cluster is either active\active or active\passive irrespective of the number of nodes.
The following article states
Microsoft Technet Server clusters can take two forms: active/passive clusters and active/active clusters.In active/passive clustering, the cluster includes active nodes and passive nodes. The passive nodes are only used if an active node fails. In active/active clusters, all nodes are active. In the event of a failover, the remaining active node takes on the additional processing operations, which causes a reduction in the overall performance of the cluster. Active/passive cluster configurations are generally recommended over active/active configurations because they often increase performance, availability, and scalability.
The configuration mentioned in the posts above would normally be referred to as an N+1 which essentially is an Active\Passive cluster anyway
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:26 PM
Points: 1,696,
Visits: 1,742
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:32 PM
Points: 67,
Visits: 168
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see a combination of Enterprise Edition and Developer Edition binaries in Node 4. It seems that they can coexist with no problems. Is that accurate?
I do have MSDN licenses and might use them instead of Developer Edition Licenses. Wondering if the DLLs can coexist.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:23 PM
Points: 1,905,
Visits: 1,601
|
|
I would agree that describing a cluster as active/active/active/passive can be more descriptive than saying N-1, where N=4 - depending on the audience. Both terms are in use and neither is incorrect. Depends on what you're describing.
Quick poll of the system engineers at the client I'm onsite at today gives a mixture of answers. It also depends on how large N is. If N=8, no-one's going to say active/active/active/active/active/active/active/passive....
Just one more example of duplicate nomenclatures with people preferring one over another that serves to confues those who aren't experts.
Paul Randal CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training! Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005
|
|
|
|