June 24, 2009 at 9:23 am
Hi All,
I am consolidating 3 sql 2005 servers to a new sql cluster and was considering trying to keep the names of the three sql servers the same, and have the name point to the first or 2nd instance on an active-active cluster. How can I take sql server sqlc5d1 and keep that name as sqlc5d1 so we DON'T have to modify the application and have sqlc5d1 resolve to cluster12\instance2 or to the default instance of a cluster?
Could this be done with DNS? or with the Cluster group? What is the best way to accomplish this?
Is this a recommended practise, or perhaps not because it hides the servers names?
We are trying to minimize the work involved in consolidating three sql servers. Clustered 2005 SQL Server is Standard, so only two intances.
Can you please point me at some resources that explain the best way to do this?
THANKS VERY MUCH!!
June 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
Put the old server name in DNS as a pointer to the new server name this is if your app connects by using a server name (NYCFINSQLP01 instead of 10.1.0.1) and not IP(your IP will change).
The recommended way is to make your apps use ODBC and when you change servers you just change the ODBC connection.
June 24, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Be careful here. If you are moving default instances from three servers and transferring them to named instances on a cluster you will be forced to change the applications. DNS can only be used to redirect the server name not the instance name.
June 24, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for the feedback!!
What if I was to put the databases from sqlc5d1, that I am consolidating over to cluster12, and put the dbs on the default instance for the cluster, cluster12, not cluster12\Instance1 and then used DNS to point sqlc5d1 to cluster12. Would that accomplish what I am trying to do and would it be recommended.
Looks like DNS can't be used to point to cluster12\Instance1, correct?
Another question that comes to mind with DNS and SQL clustering. If a DNS entry is setup for sqlc5d1 to point to cluster12, can that be used to access Instance1? Could I connect with sqlc5d1\Instance1.
Is it recommended to have more than 1 SQL instance on a node in a cluster? I read that it wasn't, but wanted to double check if that was a hard and fast rule.
Thanks for all input on this matter. I am trying to architect a consolidation to a SQL cluster and am learning a lot about both on the fly.
THANKS AGAIN!!
June 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm
What if I was to put the databases from sqlc5d1, that I am consolidating over to cluster12, and put the dbs on the default instance for the cluster, cluster12, not cluster12\Instance1 and then used DNS to point sqlc5d1 to cluster12. Would that accomplish what I am trying to do and would it be recommended.
Yes this is correct, assuming that the applications are pointing at the default instance currently and you haven't changed port numbers on install.
Looks like DNS can't be used to point to cluster12\Instance1, correct?
Yes correct.
Another question that comes to mind with DNS and SQL clustering. If a DNS entry is setup for sqlc5d1 to point to cluster12, can that be used to access Instance1? Could I connect with sqlc5d1\Instance1
Connecting to sqlc5d1\Instance1 would connect to cluster12\Instance1
A node is just a piece of tin. For best performance 1 instance will always be better than 2 but there is nothing to stop you putting two on one node. You will have to size your solution. We have an active/active/passive cluster and by default each active node has one instance but should we lose two nodes everything would run slower on one node.
June 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm
THANKS VERY MUCH for the clarification.
Is the re possible a way to use cluster administration and setting up of a virtual server to map a server_name to a 2ndary instance on a cluster? Instead of using DNS, handle it within cluster admin?
Thanks again for your excellent assitance.
Bob
June 30, 2009 at 2:42 am
You're welcome. Not that I am aware of, sorry.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply