June 1, 2017 at 8:03 am
Hi
I just wanted your 'feel' for the following idea
to setup say a 3 node windows cluster, and install 2 separate instances of sql server, and a disjointed pair setup -
ie,
Instance A, setup on Node01 & Node02.
Instance B, setup on Node02 & Node03.
So, no instance has access to more than 2 nodes, run APA (2 nodes fully licensed)
Is this a gray area? - ie, it would be true no sql instance would have access to more than 2 nodes, so would not break agreement?
Or am I thinking overoptimistically, and such a setup would not be supportable?
Many thanks in advance of your considered replies.
June 2, 2017 at 7:18 am
realmerl - Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:03 AMHiI just wanted your 'feel' for the following idea
to setup say a 3 node windows cluster, and install 2 separate instances of sql server, and a disjointed pair setup -
ie,
Instance A, setup on Node01 & Node02.
Instance B, setup on Node02 & Node03.
So, no instance has access to more than 2 nodes, run APA (2 nodes fully licensed)Is this a gray area? - ie, it would be true no sql instance would have access to more than 2 nodes, so would not break agreement?
Or am I thinking overoptimistically, and such a setup would not be supportable?Many thanks in advance of your considered replies.
Firstly, please read my stairway to AlwaysOn starting at the following link
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/stairway/112556/
Presumably these are Failover Cluster Instances you plan to install?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
June 2, 2017 at 9:08 am
Hi Perry
Thanks for your response.
Sql standard, using a traditional cluster method - shared direct attached storage (other then local tempdb's) -
Discovered on a dev test that this configuration is possible, but not sure about the legal ramifications -
Ie, yes, the windows cluster has more than 2 nodes, but no sql instance has access to more than 2 nodes, - from a sql perspective this would almost be 2 separate clusters, with each instance only having 2 nodes, but sharing one of the nodes with each other.
My question being, that although its doable, would it be breaking agreement? (we have sa) and, I also suspect its a non supported configuration?
hence the grey area - the licence does not seem to cover this scenario. (it says sql standard is limited to 2 cluster nodes, it does not say that this scenario above is not permitted, as its still a 2 node cluster from a sql standpoint, so may be fine? or not? who can say? )
The benefit would be that you could make a 3 node cluster, and run APA (fully licence 2 of the nodes), and this would save you from having 2 separate physical 2 node clusters.
June 5, 2017 at 4:42 am
realmerl - Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:03 AMInstance A, setup on Node01 & Node02.
Instance B, setup on Node02 & Node03.
Given the above, Node02 would become a standby node and be licensed accordingly.
As always, check this with your MS licensing contact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply