90 Databases on cluster (Active/Passive)

hello, I am going to install SQL Server 2000 on Windows2003 server with
(Active/Passive) configuration
I have db space as 600 gig , ranges 1 gb to 90 gb. i have one concern about
how log failover to passive server will take in case of it need? whether it
depend on the db size or file group configuration of sql server? what about
the transactions in case of failover time? is there any way we have to
configure cluster for 100% transactions accuracy. i am using IIS6.0 as web
server for my online store.
Thanks for impromptu in advance.
John
Active-Passive is an obsolete term. You are building a single-instance,
two-node cluster. Under SQL Server 2000, all cluster nodes are treated
equally after initial installation. A single SQL instance can live on any
cluster node, but only on one node at a time.
Think of a cluster failover as a SQL Service stop-restart event. Everything
that happens during a server restart, happens during a failover. All
non-committed transactions are rolled back, committed transactions are
rolled forward. Transactional consistency is still guaranteed. Actual
recovery time is affected by the number of databases to recover and the
number/size of active transactions.
As for transactions log behavior during a failover, all SQL data and log
files must be stored on a cluster resource so they can be assigned to any
host node. The cluster service and the SQL cluster configuration guarantee
all resources go to a particular host node together so the SQL server can
run.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"John" <John@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:598594BE-EAA6-4727-A56E-CF9DA9D8FB09@.microsoft.com...
> hello, I am going to install SQL Server 2000 on Windows2003 server with
> (Active/Passive) configuration
> I have db space as 600 gig , ranges 1 gb to 90 gb. i have one concern
> about
> how log failover to passive server will take in case of it need? whether
> it
> depend on the db size or file group configuration of sql server? what
> about
> the transactions in case of failover time? is there any way we have to
> configure cluster for 100% transactions accuracy. i am using IIS6.0 as web
> server for my online store.
> Thanks for impromptu in advance.
> John
>

80k active rows when I run DBCC LOGINFO(XXX). Why?

Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
JohnnyYou probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a r
eply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the e
nd. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times.
Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation
of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Johnny,

> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:

> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation
of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Johnny,
>
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This ca
n
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
>

80k active rows when I run DBCC LOGINFO(XXX). Why?

Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
JohnnyYou probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Johnny,
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> >
> > I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> > logs but the results remain the same.
> >
> > I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> > about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> > this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> >
> > Johnny

80k active rows when I run DBCC LOGINFO(XXX). Why?

Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
Johnny
You probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Johnny,

> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:

> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Johnny,
>
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:

60 GB tempdb not shrink after sql restarted

SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition running in active/passive cluster. Restarting SQ
L
server couldn't shrink the huge tempdb. Tried DBCC SHRINKFILE with no luck.
Anyone knows if Method 1 in KB 307487 applies to cluster environment? I am
sure the steps listed in Method 1 works for a stand alone built. What shoudl
I do differently for a cluster?
Thanks,Steve
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2446
"Steve777" <Steve777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:93F053A1-3405-4400-80C6-D8D61E337DFE@.microsoft.com...
> SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition running in active/passive cluster. Restarting
> SQL
> server couldn't shrink the huge tempdb. Tried DBCC SHRINKFILE with no
> luck.
> Anyone knows if Method 1 in KB 307487 applies to cluster environment? I
> am
> sure the steps listed in Method 1 works for a stand alone built. What
> shoudl
> I do differently for a cluster?
> Thanks,

60 GB tempdb not shrink after sql restarted

SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition running in active/passive cluster. Restarting SQL
server couldn't shrink the huge tempdb. Tried DBCC SHRINKFILE with no luck.
Anyone knows if Method 1 in KB 307487 applies to cluster environment? I am
sure the steps listed in Method 1 works for a stand alone built. What shoudl
I do differently for a cluster?
Thanks,Steve
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2446
"Steve777" <Steve777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:93F053A1-3405-4400-80C6-D8D61E337DFE@.microsoft.com...
> SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition running in active/passive cluster. Restarting
> SQL
> server couldn't shrink the huge tempdb. Tried DBCC SHRINKFILE with no
> luck.
> Anyone knows if Method 1 in KB 307487 applies to cluster environment? I
> am
> sure the steps listed in Method 1 works for a stand alone built. What
> shoudl
> I do differently for a cluster?
> Thanks,

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server?

Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
Active/passive set-up.
In detail, what i mean is:
I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
In case of failure,
SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
Is this possible to configure?
This is called a multi instance cluster setup, but the way it work sis
SQLInstA on WinClustA will failover to SQLInstA on WinClustB, and vice
versa.
Please post such questions to microsoft.public.sqlsever.clustering
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DE047808-6379-45C9-85BF-1FC5D3C0A646@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
> Active/passive set-up.
> In detail, what i mean is:
> I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
> On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
> On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
> In case of failure,
> SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
> SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
> Is this possible to configure?
>

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server

Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
Active/passive set-up.
In detail, what i mean is:
I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
In case of failure,
SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
Is this possible to configure?
You have a misunderstanding of how clustering works. What you want is 2 SQL
instances: SQLInstA and SQLInstB. With SQL clustering, each instance can
run on any host node, but only on one node at a time. Normally you will
have SQLInstA running on WinClustA and SQLInstB on WinClustB. Should either
node fail, the other node runs both instances. That is how clustering works
and yes, it is possible.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4D2C97A-8B60-4E64-A5E3-37215C1456FE@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
> Active/passive set-up.
> In detail, what i mean is:
> I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
> On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
> On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
> In case of failure,
> SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
> SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
> Is this possible to configure?
>
|||While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do not
want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another instance
called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
instance.
Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
one passive SQL Instance.
I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> You have a misunderstanding of how clustering works. What you want is 2 SQL
> instances: SQLInstA and SQLInstB. With SQL clustering, each instance can
> run on any host node, but only on one node at a time. Normally you will
> have SQLInstA running on WinClustA and SQLInstB on WinClustB. Should either
> node fail, the other node runs both instances. That is how clustering works
> and yes, it is possible.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E4D2C97A-8B60-4E64-A5E3-37215C1456FE@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Active and Passive are obsolete terms used to describe SQL 7.0 clustering.
They do not apply to SQL 2000 clustering. Even then, "Active" and "Passive"
referred to host nodes, not instances. An clustered instance of SQL Server
2000 does not have any "active" or "passive" context. It is an instance,
period.
You want two SQL instances which will each run on separate nodes (host
computers) except during failure. That is what I described to you under SQL
2000 clustering. Node A runs one instance and Node B runs another instance.
Should one node fail, the other node starts running both instances of SQL
server. There is no "passive" instance anywhere. The "Active" instance
simply changes host nodes. Again, this is possible. You can have up to 4
host nodes and 16 SQL instances in a SQL 2000 cluster. You can choose the
normal host node and the failure path of each SQL instance separately.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do
> not
> want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another
> instance
> called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
> instance.
> Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
> one passive SQL Instance.
> I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
> possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||This may help also:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;260758
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do
> not
> want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another
> instance
> called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
> instance.
> Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
> one passive SQL Instance.
> I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
> possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||This clarifies it, thanks.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Active and Passive are obsolete terms used to describe SQL 7.0 clustering.
> They do not apply to SQL 2000 clustering. Even then, "Active" and "Passive"
> referred to host nodes, not instances. An clustered instance of SQL Server
> 2000 does not have any "active" or "passive" context. It is an instance,
> period.
> You want two SQL instances which will each run on separate nodes (host
> computers) except during failure. That is what I described to you under SQL
> 2000 clustering. Node A runs one instance and Node B runs another instance.
> Should one node fail, the other node starts running both instances of SQL
> server. There is no "passive" instance anywhere. The "Active" instance
> simply changes host nodes. Again, this is possible. You can have up to 4
> host nodes and 16 SQL instances in a SQL 2000 cluster. You can choose the
> normal host node and the failure path of each SQL instance separately.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...
>
>

4 node cluster

Has anyone set up a 4 node cluster i.e. 3 active and 1 passive ? I only want
to consider this as it may reduce cost. We have a lot of servers and the
least i want to do is have an active passive 2 node cluster for every server
thus doubling the server costs
Do let me know what you have, whats recommended, whats ideal, whats right ?
Thanks
Hi,
There is no much cost reduction by seting up 4 node cluster in 3 active 1
passive configuration against 2x 2 node active/active configuration. You
still have four servers with storage and all the licenses.
But mostly you'll have a good fault tolerance, because 3 servers can be used
in 4 node configuration against 1 used in 2 node configuration.
I would setup 4 node cluster rather then 2 node.
Danijel Novak
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cqDOHs$FHA.3372@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Has anyone set up a 4 node cluster i.e. 3 active and 1 passive ? I only
> want to consider this as it may reduce cost. We have a lot of servers and
> the least i want to do is have an active passive 2 node cluster for every
> server thus doubling the server costs
> Do let me know what you have, whats recommended, whats ideal, whats right
> ?
> Thanks
>
|||Yes. I have built and operated such a cluster. It takes some extra care in
setting up operating procedures, but it does work. I do consider it a cost
savings since I have 1/4 of the capacity as spare rather than 50% spare.
Licensing is also pretty decent since you only need three servers worth of
SQL licenses (on node is always "passive" therefore it meets the licensing
terms.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cqDOHs$FHA.3372@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Has anyone set up a 4 node cluster i.e. 3 active and 1 passive ? I only
> want to consider this as it may reduce cost. We have a lot of servers and
> the least i want to do is have an active passive 2 node cluster for every
> server thus doubling the server costs
> Do let me know what you have, whats recommended, whats ideal, whats right
> ?
> Thanks
>
|||Geoff,
Whats your email id ? I tried the one you used but it bounced straight back
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:OeJ$Hmy$FHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Yes. I have built and operated such a cluster. It takes some extra care
> in setting up operating procedures, but it does work. I do consider it a
> cost savings since I have 1/4 of the capacity as spare rather than 50%
> spare. Licensing is also pretty decent since you only need three servers
> worth of SQL licenses (on node is always "passive" therefore it meets the
> licensing terms.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23cqDOHs$FHA.3372@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Yep. that is an old bogus ID. I usually use my gmail account for a posting
alias. I must not have updated this PC with the new address.
Please don't be offended by this, but I prefer to help people in a public
forum where everyone can benefit from the discussion. Private assistance is
a different matter and typically involves contracts and payments, and is
called "consulting".
Having said that, SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com is where you can find me.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"F" <F@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utxTCR6$FHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> Whats your email id ? I tried the one you used but it bounced straight
> back
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:OeJ$Hmy$FHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>

4 node cluster

I want to set up a 4 node cluster where 3 nodes are active and 1 is the
passive node that would take over in case any one of those 3 active nodes
fail. How can I set this up ? Any documentation..
Using SQL 2005..
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eDbSEq7hHHA.4680@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I want to set up a 4 node cluster where 3 nodes are active and 1 is the
>passive node that would take over in case any one of those 3 active nodes
>fail. How can I set this up ? Any documentation..
> Using SQL 2005..
First, you get the proper training...
Basically, you build the four node cluster then install SQL three times to
create three instances with each instance hosted in its own resource group.
Place a SQL instance on each node that you want to be the active node.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp class is:
April 30, 2007 - Denver
|||You can find a lot of documentation on MSDN about this. Setting up clustering
is a very eloborate process and you need to prepare a lot before actually
setting one up.
All the best.
Suresh
"Hassan" wrote:

> I want to set up a 4 node cluster where 3 nodes are active and 1 is the
> passive node that would take over in case any one of those 3 active nodes
> fail. How can I set this up ? Any documentation..
> Using SQL 2005..
>
>