Hi,
I already have one virtual SQL server in the cluster, it's owned by only one
node.
Now I added another node into the cluster, and we don't want this node to be
a passive node, and don't want go to multi-instance .
So, the question is if
I can create another one virtual SQL server on the new node, give it new
SQL IP,
SQL Network Name, SQL Server...
Please advise.
Thanks you so much.
Peter
You sure can, you can have 16 instances per cluster when running on Windows
Server 2003.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Koarla SUN" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7jTTLJNFHA.3900@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I already have one virtual SQL server in the cluster, it's owned by only
> one
> node.
> Now I added another node into the cluster, and we don't want this node to
> be
> a passive node, and don't want go to multi-instance .
> So, the question is if
> I can create another one virtual SQL server on the new node, give it new
> SQL IP,
> SQL Network Name, SQL Server...
> Please advise.
> Thanks you so much.
> Peter
>
>
|||Thank you so much, Rod !!
So, I can do the same steps on the new node to create the new virtual SQL as
what I did on the older node before.
Thanks,
Peter
"Koarla SUN" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7jTTLJNFHA.3900@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I already have one virtual SQL server in the cluster, it's owned by only
one
> node.
> Now I added another node into the cluster, and we don't want this node to
be
> a passive node, and don't want go to multi-instance .
> So, the question is if
> I can create another one virtual SQL server on the new node, give it new
> SQL IP,
> SQL Network Name, SQL Server...
> Please advise.
> Thanks you so much.
> Peter
>
>
|||Yes, only thing to watch out is that you can only have 1 default instance,
the rest are named. Or you can have all named instances, either way 16 is
the limit.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Koarla SUN" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e%23HWWUJNFHA.1096@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you so much, Rod !!
> So, I can do the same steps on the new node to create the new virtual SQL
> as
> what I did on the older node before.
> Thanks,
> Peter
> "Koarla SUN" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7jTTLJNFHA.3900@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> one
> be
>
|||That's mean I had to uncheck the default box and enter the instance name in
the [Instance Name] step.
So, new virtual SQL name will be "preview default instance name\instance
name"
And I can still use the default TCP port for the new virtual SQL instance.
Thank you, Rod.
Peter
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:u1KyWeJNFHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, only thing to watch out is that you can only have 1 default instance,
> the rest are named. Or you can have all named instances, either way 16 is
> the limit.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Koarla SUN" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e%23HWWUJNFHA.1096@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
only[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
new
>
|||Correct. Remember its a new name and IP so the ports will rename the same.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Peter Sun" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O9caotJNFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I had to uncheck the default box and enter the instance name
> in
> the [Instance Name] step.
> So, new virtual SQL name will be "preview default instance name\instance
> name"
> And I can still use the default TCP port for the new virtual SQL instance.
> Thank you, Rod.
> Peter
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:u1KyWeJNFHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> SQL
> only
> to
> new
>
|||I was confused with the multi-instance, I was think I can go ahead to create
a another one virtual SQL server, just put these virtual SQL servers under
the same cluster.
So, I was thinking I enter a different viirtual SQL server name at the first
step, and still check default box in the [instance name} step. Then we will
have kind of virtual SQL server naming, Node1 , Node 2, ...Node 16
As I assign a new IP with the new virtual SQL server, I should be able to
use the default SQL tcp port : 1433.
I appreciate yoou got me clear.
Thank you so much.
Peter
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:ulLDR2JNFHA.688@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Correct. Remember its a new name and IP so the ports will rename the
same.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Peter Sun" <koarla@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O9caotJNFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
name[vbcol=seagreen]
instance.[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
node[vbcol=seagreen]
it
>
Showing posts with label virtual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtual. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Can a virtual server have local Windows users and groups?
Hi,
I have a scenario which works fine on a non-clustered SQL server, and I now
want to implement it on a clustered SQL server.
In a stand-alone, non-clustered environment:
- I have local Windows security groups on the machine; call the groups
MyGroup1, MyGroup2.
- I grant these groups login to the server, and access to the DB, as
follows: (later I add them to DB roles)
declare @.servername sysname
declare @.pos int
set @.servername = serverproperty('MachineName')
set @.pos = charindex(N'\', @.servername, 0)
if @.pos > 0
set @.servername = left(@.servername, @.pos-1)
use master
declare @.loginame sysname
set @.loginame = @.servername + '\MyGroup1'
if (not exists (select name from syslogins where name = @.loginame))
begin
exec sp_grantlogin @.loginame
end
exec sp_defaultdb @.loginame, MyDatabase
I'd like to do something similar on a clustered SQL server. But does a
cluster have a concept of local Windows groups, or must they be domain
groups?
How would I go about setting this up?
Thanks,
John.
I think I can answer this, since a cluster requires a domain account to
run - just make domain groups. Besides creating the local ones would be a
pain, think about failover.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"John [412075]" <John_dot_Knox_hyphen_Davies@.wonderware0com> wrote in
message news:OmdbtRLBFHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a scenario which works fine on a non-clustered SQL server, and I
> now
> want to implement it on a clustered SQL server.
> In a stand-alone, non-clustered environment:
> - I have local Windows security groups on the machine; call the groups
> MyGroup1, MyGroup2.
> - I grant these groups login to the server, and access to the DB, as
> follows: (later I add them to DB roles)
> declare @.servername sysname
> declare @.pos int
> set @.servername = serverproperty('MachineName')
> set @.pos = charindex(N'\', @.servername, 0)
> if @.pos > 0
> set @.servername = left(@.servername, @.pos-1)
> use master
> declare @.loginame sysname
> set @.loginame = @.servername + '\MyGroup1'
> if (not exists (select name from syslogins where name = @.loginame))
> begin
> exec sp_grantlogin @.loginame
> end
> exec sp_defaultdb @.loginame, MyDatabase
>
> I'd like to do something similar on a clustered SQL server. But does a
> cluster have a concept of local Windows groups, or must they be domain
> groups?
> How would I go about setting this up?
> Thanks,
> John.
>
I have a scenario which works fine on a non-clustered SQL server, and I now
want to implement it on a clustered SQL server.
In a stand-alone, non-clustered environment:
- I have local Windows security groups on the machine; call the groups
MyGroup1, MyGroup2.
- I grant these groups login to the server, and access to the DB, as
follows: (later I add them to DB roles)
declare @.servername sysname
declare @.pos int
set @.servername = serverproperty('MachineName')
set @.pos = charindex(N'\', @.servername, 0)
if @.pos > 0
set @.servername = left(@.servername, @.pos-1)
use master
declare @.loginame sysname
set @.loginame = @.servername + '\MyGroup1'
if (not exists (select name from syslogins where name = @.loginame))
begin
exec sp_grantlogin @.loginame
end
exec sp_defaultdb @.loginame, MyDatabase
I'd like to do something similar on a clustered SQL server. But does a
cluster have a concept of local Windows groups, or must they be domain
groups?
How would I go about setting this up?
Thanks,
John.
I think I can answer this, since a cluster requires a domain account to
run - just make domain groups. Besides creating the local ones would be a
pain, think about failover.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"John [412075]" <John_dot_Knox_hyphen_Davies@.wonderware0com> wrote in
message news:OmdbtRLBFHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a scenario which works fine on a non-clustered SQL server, and I
> now
> want to implement it on a clustered SQL server.
> In a stand-alone, non-clustered environment:
> - I have local Windows security groups on the machine; call the groups
> MyGroup1, MyGroup2.
> - I grant these groups login to the server, and access to the DB, as
> follows: (later I add them to DB roles)
> declare @.servername sysname
> declare @.pos int
> set @.servername = serverproperty('MachineName')
> set @.pos = charindex(N'\', @.servername, 0)
> if @.pos > 0
> set @.servername = left(@.servername, @.pos-1)
> use master
> declare @.loginame sysname
> set @.loginame = @.servername + '\MyGroup1'
> if (not exists (select name from syslogins where name = @.loginame))
> begin
> exec sp_grantlogin @.loginame
> end
> exec sp_defaultdb @.loginame, MyDatabase
>
> I'd like to do something similar on a clustered SQL server. But does a
> cluster have a concept of local Windows groups, or must they be domain
> groups?
> How would I go about setting this up?
> Thanks,
> John.
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Can a SQL "virtual server" contains more than one SQL instance ?
Hi, I am new to SQL clustering.
I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql 2000
enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I have
create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql instance
using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it becomes
prodsql\inst1.
My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the same
Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this will
become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one cluster
group can have only one virtual server can only have one single instance of
SQL ? )
Any advice appreciated.
George Norman
From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a SQL
Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual servers
on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default instance or a
named instance. The virtual server looks like a single computer to
applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When applications
connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention as when
connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual server
name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for named
instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information about
clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
joe.
"Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, I am new to SQL clustering.
> I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql
> 2000 enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I
> have create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql
> instance using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
> But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
> only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
> example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it
> becomes prodsql\inst1.
> My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the
> same Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this
> will become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one
> cluster group can have only one virtual server can only have one single
> instance of SQL ? )
> Any advice appreciated.
> George Norman
>
|||Thanks Joe, that clears things up.
So when Microsoft said Multiple instance it means "multiple Virtual Servers
each with a single SQL instance" .
So does it also means that the Active -Active ( say between two nodes ) is
just running one Virtual server on each of the nodes to spread the work load
( and of course one of the node will control the quorum )?
George
"Joe Yong" <jyongNOSPAM@.scalabilityexperts.com> wrote in message
news:eJ6tUeuYFHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
> Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
> You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a
> SQL Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual
> servers on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default
> instance or a named instance. The virtual server looks like a single
> computer to applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When
> applications connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention
> as when connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual
> server name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for
> named instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information
> about clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
>
>
> joe.
> "Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql 2000
enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I have
create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql instance
using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it becomes
prodsql\inst1.
My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the same
Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this will
become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one cluster
group can have only one virtual server can only have one single instance of
SQL ? )
Any advice appreciated.
George Norman
From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a SQL
Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual servers
on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default instance or a
named instance. The virtual server looks like a single computer to
applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When applications
connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention as when
connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual server
name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for named
instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information about
clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
joe.
"Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, I am new to SQL clustering.
> I have a two nodes windows 2003 enterprise server in a cluster with sql
> 2000 enterprise server installed. Following the SQL installation screen I
> have create a virtual server ( for SQL ) and installed the first sql
> instance using "default" as the name .So far no problem.
> But when I tried to install another instance of SQL it seems like I could
> only create a new Virtual server and then name another SQLinstance (
> example: Virtual server is " ProdSQL" and instance is INST1) , so it
> becomes prodsql\inst1.
> My question ( confusion ) is : can I create another instance using the
> same Virtual server "prodsql" and install another instance "inst2" so this
> will become prodsql\inst2. Is this possible and how to do it ?( Or one
> cluster group can have only one virtual server can only have one single
> instance of SQL ? )
> Any advice appreciated.
> George Norman
>
|||Thanks Joe, that clears things up.
So when Microsoft said Multiple instance it means "multiple Virtual Servers
each with a single SQL instance" .
So does it also means that the Active -Active ( say between two nodes ) is
just running one Virtual server on each of the nodes to spread the work load
( and of course one of the node will control the quorum )?
George
"Joe Yong" <jyongNOSPAM@.scalabilityexperts.com> wrote in message
news:eJ6tUeuYFHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> From BOL ("usually" your best buddy):
> Multiple Instances of SQL Server on a Failover Cluster
> You can run only one instance of SQL Server on each virtual server of a
> SQL Server failover cluster, although you can install up to 16 virtual
> servers on a failover cluster. The instance can be either a default
> instance or a named instance. The virtual server looks like a single
> computer to applications connecting to that instance of SQL Server. When
> applications connect to the virtual server, they use the same convention
> as when connecting to any instance of SQL Server; they specify the virtual
> server name of the cluster and the optional instance name (only needed for
> named instances): virtualservername\instancename. For more information
> about clustering, see Failover Clustering Architecture.
>
>
> joe.
> "Norman" <GeorgeNorman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emEeoMuYFHA.3572@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Can 2K5 Cluster can have 2 instances on each node?
Hi,
We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
I think you have some misconceptions on how clustering works. The obsolete
naming of "Active/passive/Active..." is partially responsible for that.
Instances are installed to the cluster. You can have up to sixteen
instances on a cluster. SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition supports up to
two-node clusters. Nodes are the host computers for a cluster. An instance
can run on either node, but only on one node at a time. You cannot install
the same SQL instance to two nodes and have them both serviceing data
requests as if they were the same server. SQL Clustering is a failover
technology, not a scale-out technology. You can create two SQL instances on
a SQL 2005 two-node cluster and let one run normally on each node. During a
failure event one node can run both instances, with some performance
compromises of course.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> Hi,
> We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
> GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
> first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
> similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
> active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
> able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
> have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
|||You can have up to sixteen instances per cluster. Once the instances are
installed, you can set the preferred node order for each instance. That
determines which node is the normal host for this instance. Each instance
is completely independent from the other instances. You can move each
instance independently between nodes without affecting any other instance.
Just as on a stand-alone system with multiple instances, it is the DBA's
responsibility to make sure there are enough resources for all instances to
function properly. Note that SQL will not rebalance memory amongst multiple
instances. I.E. It will not make one instance give up memory so another one
can have it. You must plan ahead for the situation where one node hosts
more than its normal set of instances.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> I will try to make my problem more clear.
> I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
> databases
> connecting to 4 very different application.
> so
> Node1-->InsA-->DBa
> Node1-->InsB-->DBb
> Node2-->InsC-->DBc
> Node2-->InsD-->DBd
> So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
> Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
> running with 1 instance?
> My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
> each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
> instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
> 2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||Just curious why you need so many instances. One instance can handle 4
DB's.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
I think you have some misconceptions on how clustering works. The obsolete
naming of "Active/passive/Active..." is partially responsible for that.
Instances are installed to the cluster. You can have up to sixteen
instances on a cluster. SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition supports up to
two-node clusters. Nodes are the host computers for a cluster. An instance
can run on either node, but only on one node at a time. You cannot install
the same SQL instance to two nodes and have them both serviceing data
requests as if they were the same server. SQL Clustering is a failover
technology, not a scale-out technology. You can create two SQL instances on
a SQL 2005 two-node cluster and let one run normally on each node. During a
failure event one node can run both instances, with some performance
compromises of course.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25toh0@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> Hi,
> We have sql 2005 standard installed as cluster on win2k3 cluster with 8
> GB memory on each node. We have one virtual sql server named instance on
> first node. Can we create one more instance on the same node and
> similarly 2 more instances on the second node. The cluster will be in
> active\active mode. Our reason for considering this is that we will be
> able to fail over one instance from the node 1 to node2 and node2 still
> have the 2nd instance running. Is this possible?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
|||You can have up to sixteen instances per cluster. Once the instances are
installed, you can set the preferred node order for each instance. That
determines which node is the normal host for this instance. Each instance
is completely independent from the other instances. You can move each
instance independently between nodes without affecting any other instance.
Just as on a stand-alone system with multiple instances, it is the DBA's
responsibility to make sure there are enough resources for all instances to
function properly. Note that SQL will not rebalance memory amongst multiple
instances. I.E. It will not make one instance give up memory so another one
can have it. You must plan ahead for the situation where one node hosts
more than its normal set of instances.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
> I will try to make my problem more clear.
> I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
> databases
> connecting to 4 very different application.
> so
> Node1-->InsA-->DBa
> Node1-->InsB-->DBb
> Node2-->InsC-->DBc
> Node2-->InsD-->DBd
> So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
> Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
> running with 1 instance?
> My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
> each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
> instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
> 2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
> Thanks
>
> --
> DeBe
> DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
> View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
>
|||Just curious why you need so many instances. One instance can handle 4
DB's.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"DeBe" <DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:DeBe.25uu4z@.no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...
I will try to make my problem more clear.
I am talking about 4 different instances and they have 4 different
databases
connecting to 4 very different application.
so
Node1-->InsA-->DBa
Node1-->InsB-->DBb
Node2-->InsC-->DBc
Node2-->InsD-->DBd
So I guess my question is is it possible for just InsA to fail over to
Node 2. So that node 2 is now running with 3 instances and node 1 is
running with 1 instance?
My second question would be about the memory. If out of 8 GB Ram on
each node if 1 GB is assigned to os and 3 GB is assigned to each
instance (assuming 2 instances) and if the third instance from the node
2 fails over how will it get the memory for itself?
Thanks
DeBe
DeBe's Profile: http://www.dbtalk.net/m115
View this thread: http://www.dbtalk.net/t297735
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)