March 26, 2014 at 8:09 am
Hi Guys,
I'm quite confused and need your advise.
Understand that for AlwaysOn, we have 2 options:
1. AlwaysOn Failover Cluster Instances
2. AlwaysOn Availability Groups
Right now I have a SQL Server 2008R2 Instance which was configured as 2 nodes failover cluster.
Have read a few documents but still couldn't really understand.
1. What is the differences between the 2012 AlwaysOn Failover Cluster Instances with the normal SQL Server Clustering? Does SQL Server 2012 has the normal type of clustering like 2008R2?
2. Based on ur experience, usually company will implement both option 1 and option 2 together? Or just one of the option? Will implement both together introduce a lot of complexity? Worth the trouble?
thanks!
March 26, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Yes, 2012 has the shared disk cluster through the Failover Cluster. Same as before. You can also have Availability Groups, but they're actually a separate thing to set up and manage. Most places seem to go with one or the other because failovers are likely to get pretty exciting if a database can go more than one place. Just remember that the Failover Cluster for a server and Availability Groups are for a database or set of databases. Very different concepts.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
March 26, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Oops. Instead of server there at the end, I should have said instance. That's more accurate.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
March 27, 2014 at 6:39 am
Read through Perry Whittle's articles on this topic. Can be found on this website
March 27, 2014 at 7:55 am
chewychewy (3/26/2014)
Hi Guys,I'm quite confused and need your advise.
Understand that for AlwaysOn, we have 2 options:
1. AlwaysOn Failover Cluster Instances
2. AlwaysOn Availability Groups
For no 1 its more of a rebrand than anything.
chewychewy (3/26/2014)
Right now I have a SQL Server 2008R2 Instance which was configured as 2 nodes failover cluster.Have read a few documents but still couldn't really understand.
1. What is the differences between the 2012 AlwaysOn Failover Cluster Instances with the normal SQL Server Clustering? Does SQL Server 2012 has the normal type of clustering like 2008R2?
A SQL Server 2008 R2 Failover Cluster Instance and a SQL Server 2012 Failover Cluster Instance are exactly the same, barr the database engine versions.
chewychewy (3/26/2014)
2. Based on ur experience, usually company will implement both option 1 and option 2 together? Or just one of the option? Will implement both together introduce a lot of complexity? Worth the trouble?thanks!
You can implement both but they are extremely complex and have a higher financial cost assoicated too
Grant Fritchey (3/26/2014)
Most places seem to go with one or the other
You can also combine them but it increases the complexity and hardware\software requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply