Hey all,
We have a simple two-node x86 failover cluster attached to a SAN on which SQL Server 2005 runs. We recently bought two new x64 boxes to upgrade the cluster. My original plan was to just add the new nodes to the existing cluster and then remove the old nodes from the cluster, but I just found out that you can't mix architecture types in a cluster.
So far, it seems our choices are:
1) Install x86 Windows 2003 Server on the new nodes, losing performance.
2) Make a new cluster and migrate the data, possibly imposing downtime.
Anyone have any suggestions?You may be able to "swing" the LUNs from one cluster to the other, without much trouble. This depends on a number of factors, so you should contact your SAN vendor to see if it is feasible. If it is, then you build the 64-bit cluster, swing the LUNs over, attach all the DBs to the 64-bit instance of SQL Server, and then change all the applications that pointed to the old cluster. One caution, though, you should definitely take a real nice backup of all the databases, before you do the LUN switch, since you could potentially lose all of your databases to an inadvertent FORMAT command.|||Yeah, I think that's going to be the option we go with, since we can attach the new servers to the old LUNs, but that will involve some downtime.
I suppose we could replicate the dbs to a third server, update the important connections to point to the replicated server, do the move, point the connections to the new cluster.
Ugh.
Showing posts with label boxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boxes. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Cluster Server Planning.
I would like some advise on my plan to install an active/active sql cluster.
The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: E
mirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: G
mirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P: G:
and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for the
databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound plan,
or have I just wasted my time?
That sounds pretty good. I would seriously look at RAID 10 rather than RAID
5. The difference in write performance can be huge.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
> I would like some advise on my plan to install an active/active sql
cluster.
> The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
> drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
> Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
> drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
> keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
> have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: Emirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: G
> mirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P:
G:
> and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for
the
> databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
> the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound
plan,
> or have I just wasted my time?
|||I do not understand the Q and P drive assignment.
I have a Q (Quorum) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
ip-address an networkname)
I have a X (MSDTC) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
ip-address an networkname)
The Q and X drive do not come back in the SQL cluster resource group's
You do not mention a seperate cluster resource group for MSDTC. You should
do that.
Gr. G
(more info on MSDTC: http://sswug.org/blogging/gbrander/)
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
>I would like some advise on my plan to install an active/active sql
>cluster.
> The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
> drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
> Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
> drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
> keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
> have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: Emirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: G
> mirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P:
> G:
> and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for
> the
> databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
> the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound
> plan,
> or have I just wasted my time?
|||I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum. I'm
going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q, the
Physical Disk (F, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1 will
be owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P, the
Physical Disk (H, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be owned by
server2. Will this work ?
"Gé Brander" wrote:
> I do not understand the Q and P drive assignment.
> I have a Q (Quorum) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
> ip-address an networkname)
> I have a X (MSDTC) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
> ip-address an networkname)
> The Q and X drive do not come back in the SQL cluster resource group's
> You do not mention a seperate cluster resource group for MSDTC. You should
> do that.
> Gr. Gé
> (more info on MSDTC: http://sswug.org/blogging/gbrander/)
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I too and lost by your wording I think, or maybe cause its Monday here. Are
you saying you will split a LUN into 2 or more partitions and then try to
use different partitions with different nodes? Clustering does not deal with
partitions, only drives. So a node or instance will not be able to share a
drive (and one or more partitions) with another node/instance.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum.
>I'm
> going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
> that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
> everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
> Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q,
> the
> Physical Disk (F, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1
> will
> be owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P, the
> Physical Disk (H, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be owned
> by
> server2. Will this work ?
> "G Brander" wrote:
|||Good catch Rodney.
Clustering looks at physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak). If you partition
the disk, clustering still sees the underlying physical disk.
Also, you don't want your Quorum disk to be part of your SQL Resource group.
That is a Low-Availability approach. Putting MSDCT in with a SQL instance
is an even worse approach. You need one disk for the Quorum, preferably one
disk for MSDTC (although it can be the same as the Quorum disk), and at
least one (preferably two or more) disks per SQL instance. These must be
physical disks or separate LUNs from a SAN device. Anything else will
compromise availability to the point that a cluster won't buy you any higher
availability.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...
> I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum.
I'm
> going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
> that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
> everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
> Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q,
the
> Physical Disk (F, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1
will
> be owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P, the
> Physical Disk (H, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be owned
by[vbcol=seagreen]
> server2. Will this work ?
> "G Brander" wrote:
should[vbcol=seagreen]
13[vbcol=seagreen]
sets of[vbcol=seagreen]
logical[vbcol=seagreen]
will[vbcol=seagreen]
I'll[vbcol=seagreen]
G[vbcol=seagreen]
P:[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
spilt[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Rodney and Geoff, I admit my terminology was bad. I 'AM' going to have 2
physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak) per instance of SQL. One for databases
and one for transaction logs. I was trying to see if I could cheat and 'NOT'
use an entire disk for the quorum, but looks like that will not work (or not
work very well) in a multiple instance cluster. So it looks like I'll need
14, probably 15 disks on my shared storage to make this work.
So how about plan B:
Setup one physical disk (probably mirrored) for the quorum and the MSDTC.
Setup one physical disk (mirrored) for the transaction logs for each instance
of SQL. Setup one physical disk (Raid 5 or maybe 10) for the databases for
each instance of SQL. And if I can afford it a global hot spare. Better to
get it right in the planning stage than looking like an idiot trying to get a
bad design to work.
Thanks
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Good catch Rodney.
> Clustering looks at physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak). If you partition
> the disk, clustering still sees the underlying physical disk.
> Also, you don't want your Quorum disk to be part of your SQL Resource group.
> That is a Low-Availability approach. Putting MSDCT in with a SQL instance
> is an even worse approach. You need one disk for the Quorum, preferably one
> disk for MSDTC (although it can be the same as the Quorum disk), and at
> least one (preferably two or more) disks per SQL instance. These must be
> physical disks or separate LUNs from a SAN device. Anything else will
> compromise availability to the point that a cluster won't buy you any higher
> availability.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...
> I'm
> the
> will
> by
> should
> 13
> sets of
> logical
> will
> I'll
> G
> P:
> for
> spilt
>
>
|||I like plan B, and not just cause I fully understand it. Question, are your
SQL applications going to use MSDTC? If so, for performance reasons you may
want to have a mirror just for the log and extend the default log size.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B6F25F5-FB78-4023-AE65-6F4335DA4940@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Rodney and Geoff, I admit my terminology was bad. I 'AM' going to have 2
> physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak) per instance of SQL. One for databases
> and one for transaction logs. I was trying to see if I could cheat and
> 'NOT'
> use an entire disk for the quorum, but looks like that will not work (or
> not
> work very well) in a multiple instance cluster. So it looks like I'll need
> 14, probably 15 disks on my shared storage to make this work.
> So how about plan B:
> Setup one physical disk (probably mirrored) for the quorum and the MSDTC.
> Setup one physical disk (mirrored) for the transaction logs for each
> instance
> of SQL. Setup one physical disk (Raid 5 or maybe 10) for the databases for
> each instance of SQL. And if I can afford it a global hot spare. Better
> to
> get it right in the planning stage than looking like an idiot trying to
> get a
> bad design to work.
> Thanks
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Rodney, yes I plan on the SQL applications using the MSDTC. Where can I find
info on how to extend the default log size.
Thanks for the heads up.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> I like plan B, and not just cause I fully understand it. Question, are your
> SQL applications going to use MSDTC? If so, for performance reasons you may
> want to have a mirror just for the log and extend the default log size.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B6F25F5-FB78-4023-AE65-6F4335DA4940@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||First follow http://support.microsoft.com/kb/817064 on each machine BEFORE
you install the cluster service.
Then on each node - open component services - Computers - My Computer -
Properties - MSDTC tab - Capacity = 12 or 16 or anything larger then 4 MB,
close it out. Make both machines the same size log.
Install Microsoft clustering.
Finally follow
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;301600
Then Install SQL in the Cluster.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AD40F458-65B9-45DC-8CA0-5031975CD3DD@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Rodney, yes I plan on the SQL applications using the MSDTC. Where can I
> find
> info on how to extend the default log size.
> Thanks for the heads up.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: E
mirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: Gmirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P: G:
and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for the
databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound plan,
or have I just wasted my time?
That sounds pretty good. I would seriously look at RAID 10 rather than RAID
5. The difference in write performance can be huge.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
> I would like some advise on my plan to install an active/active sql
cluster.
> The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
> drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
> Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
> drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
> keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
> have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: E
mirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: G> mirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P:
G:
> and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for
the
> databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
> the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound
plan,
> or have I just wasted my time?
|||I do not understand the Q and P drive assignment.
I have a Q (Quorum) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
ip-address an networkname)
I have a X (MSDTC) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
ip-address an networkname)
The Q and X drive do not come back in the SQL cluster resource group's
You do not mention a seperate cluster resource group for MSDTC. You should
do that.
Gr. G
(more info on MSDTC: http://sswug.org/blogging/gbrander/)
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
>I would like some advise on my plan to install an active/active sql
>cluster.
> The plan is to build 2 boxes with W2k3 server and SQL2003. I'll have 13
> drives on a shared disk storage (two sets of mirrored drives) (two sets of
> Raid 5 [4 drives each]) (1 global hot spare). I'll create a 1 Gig logical
> drive (Q & P)on each of the mirrored sets (P will be a right-off but will
> keep everything looking the same). The Q drive is for the Quorum. So I'll
> have C: and D: on each machine, (Q: E
mirrored drives F: Raid5 (P: G> mirrored drives H: Raid5. SQL1 will own Q: E: and F:, SQL2 will own P:
> G:
> and H:. E: and G: will be for transaction logs while F: and H: are for
> the
> databases. I'll install instances of sql running on each server and spilt
> the databases between the two (we have around fifty). Is this a sound
> plan,
> or have I just wasted my time?
|||I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum. I'm
going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q
, thePhysical Disk (F
, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1 willbe owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P
, thePhysical Disk (H
, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be owned byserver2. Will this work ?
"Gé Brander" wrote:
> I do not understand the Q and P drive assignment.
> I have a Q (Quorum) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
> ip-address an networkname)
> I have a X (MSDTC) in a seperate cluster resource group (with seperate
> ip-address an networkname)
> The Q and X drive do not come back in the SQL cluster resource group's
> You do not mention a seperate cluster resource group for MSDTC. You should
> do that.
> Gr. Gé
> (more info on MSDTC: http://sswug.org/blogging/gbrander/)
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9AD5CF79-5664-466C-AB15-F48C4F99972C@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I too and lost by your wording I think, or maybe cause its Monday here. Are
you saying you will split a LUN into 2 or more partitions and then try to
use different partitions with different nodes? Clustering does not deal with
partitions, only drives. So a node or instance will not be able to share a
drive (and one or more partitions) with another node/instance.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum.
>I'm
> going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
> that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
> everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
> Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q
,> the
> Physical Disk (F
, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1> will
> be owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P
, the> Physical Disk (H
, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be owned> by
> server2. Will this work ?
> "G Brander" wrote:
|||Good catch Rodney.
Clustering looks at physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak). If you partition
the disk, clustering still sees the underlying physical disk.
Also, you don't want your Quorum disk to be part of your SQL Resource group.
That is a Low-Availability approach. Putting MSDCT in with a SQL instance
is an even worse approach. You need one disk for the Quorum, preferably one
disk for MSDTC (although it can be the same as the Quorum disk), and at
least one (preferably two or more) disks per SQL instance. These must be
physical disks or separate LUNs from a SAN device. Anything else will
compromise availability to the point that a cluster won't buy you any higher
availability.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...
> I am not planning going to use and entire physical disk for the Quorum.
I'm
> going to make a partition on a mirrored set (that will be a physical disk)
> that will be the Q: drive. The P: drive is just my way of keeping
> everything looking the same. My plan is to have only 2 cluster groups.
> Group 1 be will the Cluster IP, Cluster Name, the Physical Disk (E: Q
,the
> Physical Disk (F
, the MSDTC, and the first instance of SQL. Group 1will
> be owned by server1. Group 2 be will the Physical Disk (G: P
, the> Physical Disk (H
, and the second instance of SQL. Group 2 will be ownedby[vbcol=seagreen]
> server2. Will this work ?
> "G Brander" wrote:
should[vbcol=seagreen]
13[vbcol=seagreen]
sets of[vbcol=seagreen]
logical[vbcol=seagreen]
will[vbcol=seagreen]
I'll[vbcol=seagreen]
G
[vbcol=seagreen]P:[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
spilt[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Rodney and Geoff, I admit my terminology was bad. I 'AM' going to have 2
physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak) per instance of SQL. One for databases
and one for transaction logs. I was trying to see if I could cheat and 'NOT'
use an entire disk for the quorum, but looks like that will not work (or not
work very well) in a multiple instance cluster. So it looks like I'll need
14, probably 15 disks on my shared storage to make this work.
So how about plan B:
Setup one physical disk (probably mirrored) for the quorum and the MSDTC.
Setup one physical disk (mirrored) for the transaction logs for each instance
of SQL. Setup one physical disk (Raid 5 or maybe 10) for the databases for
each instance of SQL. And if I can afford it a global hot spare. Better to
get it right in the planning stage than looking like an idiot trying to get a
bad design to work.
Thanks
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Good catch Rodney.
> Clustering looks at physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak). If you partition
> the disk, clustering still sees the underlying physical disk.
> Also, you don't want your Quorum disk to be part of your SQL Resource group.
> That is a Low-Availability approach. Putting MSDCT in with a SQL instance
> is an even worse approach. You need one disk for the Quorum, preferably one
> disk for MSDTC (although it can be the same as the Quorum disk), and at
> least one (preferably two or more) disks per SQL instance. These must be
> physical disks or separate LUNs from a SAN device. Anything else will
> compromise availability to the point that a cluster won't buy you any higher
> availability.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA6C951-0E13-4619-906F-BB0B0DB0C463@.microsoft.com...
> I'm
> the
> will
> by
> should
> 13
> sets of
> logical
> will
> I'll
> G
> P:
> for
> spilt
>
>
|||I like plan B, and not just cause I fully understand it. Question, are your
SQL applications going to use MSDTC? If so, for performance reasons you may
want to have a mirror just for the log and extend the default log size.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B6F25F5-FB78-4023-AE65-6F4335DA4940@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Rodney and Geoff, I admit my terminology was bad. I 'AM' going to have 2
> physical disks (LUNs in SAN-speak) per instance of SQL. One for databases
> and one for transaction logs. I was trying to see if I could cheat and
> 'NOT'
> use an entire disk for the quorum, but looks like that will not work (or
> not
> work very well) in a multiple instance cluster. So it looks like I'll need
> 14, probably 15 disks on my shared storage to make this work.
> So how about plan B:
> Setup one physical disk (probably mirrored) for the quorum and the MSDTC.
> Setup one physical disk (mirrored) for the transaction logs for each
> instance
> of SQL. Setup one physical disk (Raid 5 or maybe 10) for the databases for
> each instance of SQL. And if I can afford it a global hot spare. Better
> to
> get it right in the planning stage than looking like an idiot trying to
> get a
> bad design to work.
> Thanks
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Rodney, yes I plan on the SQL applications using the MSDTC. Where can I find
info on how to extend the default log size.
Thanks for the heads up.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> I like plan B, and not just cause I fully understand it. Question, are your
> SQL applications going to use MSDTC? If so, for performance reasons you may
> want to have a mirror just for the log and extend the default log size.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B6F25F5-FB78-4023-AE65-6F4335DA4940@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||First follow http://support.microsoft.com/kb/817064 on each machine BEFORE
you install the cluster service.
Then on each node - open component services - Computers - My Computer -
Properties - MSDTC tab - Capacity = 12 or 16 or anything larger then 4 MB,
close it out. Make both machines the same size log.
Install Microsoft clustering.
Finally follow
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;301600
Then Install SQL in the Cluster.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Wayne" <Wayne@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AD40F458-65B9-45DC-8CA0-5031975CD3DD@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Rodney, yes I plan on the SQL applications using the MSDTC. Where can I
> find
> info on how to extend the default log size.
> Thanks for the heads up.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Client Components Fail to Install - UPDATE
Me as well can not install the client components on boxes that have CLR 2.0/Office 2007 already installed. Notice that the failures have occured on boxes that doesn't have any SQL Server 2005 components installed. I do not know if it is CLR 2.0 or Office that causes the failures.
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The error I'm getting initially is the same as Bogey1 and willgart: "
Upgrade failed due to the following error. The error code is:
-2147467259. Message: Unspecified error"
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The workaround is obviously to choose an advanced setup and de-select BI Dev Studio from the Client Components installation node.
So far this has happened on following boxes:
1. LongHorn Server Beta 3 (LH) with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
2. A complete new install of LH Server, i.e nothing on the box that is not part of a normal LH installation (notice that CLR 2.0 is part of a LH installation).
3. Win 2K3 sp2 with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
In the installations above I have no Visual Studio bits installed what-so-ever
The installation succeeded on a complete new Win 2K3 sp2 installation; i.e. no CLR 2.0 bits and no Office 2007 bits.
Hope someone can shed some light on this.
Niels
OK, so I have now done a successful installation on a W2K3 sp2 box with Office 2007 installed - but no CLR 2.0/3.0. Remember from the initial post in this thread that the installation fails on W2K3 sp2 with CLR 2.0 and Office 2007.
It seems that the failures some of us have seen are due to having CLR 2.0/3.0 installed.
After the successful installation I installed the CLR 2.0 SDK, CLR 3.0 and Orcas and everything works just fine.
Niels
|||
Are you sure you do not have Microsoft Visual Studio installed by some application?
This error is usually due to VS installed in a non-default location.
Please confirm if you have VS installed in a non-default location, and if so, make sure that you have devenv.exe.config installed in its default location. For VS8:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe.config
|||Hi,Thanks for coming back to me on this. The only thing that I have installed, when the installation has failed is CLR 2.0 and the CLR 2.0 SDK. I don't know if the SDK installation installs the VS bits (but I doubt it).
Niels
|||Please double-check if you have this file installed in a non-default location. VS installs as a pre-req for some components, and you might not notice that it is installed.|||Will do. However I'm on the road for another week, and won't be able to do it until I'm back.
Thanks again!
Niels
Client Components Fail to Install - UPDATE
Me as well can not install the client components on boxes that have CLR 2.0/Office 2007 already installed. Notice that the failures have occured on boxes that doesn't have any SQL Server 2005 components installed. I do not know if it is CLR 2.0 or Office that causes the failures.
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The error I'm getting initially is the same as Bogey1 and willgart: "
Upgrade failed due to the following error. The error code is:
-2147467259. Message: Unspecified error"
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The workaround is obviously to choose an advanced setup and de-select BI Dev Studio from the Client Components installation node.
So far this has happened on following boxes:
1. LongHorn Server Beta 3 (LH) with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
2. A complete new install of LH Server, i.e nothing on the box that is not part of a normal LH installation (notice that CLR 2.0 is part of a LH installation).
3. Win 2K3 sp2 with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
In the installations above I have no Visual Studio bits installed what-so-ever
The installation succeeded on a complete new Win 2K3 sp2 installation; i.e. no CLR 2.0 bits and no Office 2007 bits.
Hope someone can shed some light on this.
Niels
OK, so I have now done a successful installation on a W2K3 sp2 box with Office 2007 installed - but no CLR 2.0/3.0. Remember from the initial post in this thread that the installation fails on W2K3 sp2 with CLR 2.0 and Office 2007.
It seems that the failures some of us have seen are due to having CLR 2.0/3.0 installed.
After the successful installation I installed the CLR 2.0 SDK, CLR 3.0 and Orcas and everything works just fine.
Niels
|||
Are you sure you do not have Microsoft Visual Studio installed by some application?
This error is usually due to VS installed in a non-default location.
Please confirm if you have VS installed in a non-default location, and if so, make sure that you have devenv.exe.config installed in its default location. For VS8:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe.config
|||Hi,Thanks for coming back to me on this. The only thing that I have installed, when the installation has failed is CLR 2.0 and the CLR 2.0 SDK. I don't know if the SDK installation installs the VS bits (but I doubt it).
Niels
|||Please double-check if you have this file installed in a non-default location. VS installs as a pre-req for some components, and you might not notice that it is installed.|||Will do. However I'm on the road for another week, and won't be able to do it until I'm back.
Thanks again!
Niels
Client Components Fail to Install
Me as well can not install the client components on boxes that have CLR 2.0/Office 2007 already installed. Notice that the failures have occured on boxes that doesn't have any SQL Server 2005 components installed. I do not know if it is CLR 2.0 or Office that causes the failures.
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The error I'm getting initially is the same as Bogey1 and willgart: "
Upgrade failed due to the following error. The error code is:
-2147467259. Message: Unspecified error"
I have narrowed the failure down somewhat further; it occurs during installation of Business Intelligence Development Studio and it seems to happen during a process when it tries to upgrade the Microsoft Report Server (I have not installed Reporting Services - and it does not make any difference if Reporting Services is installed or not).
The workaround is obviously to choose an advanced setup and de-select BI Dev Studio from the Client Components installation node.
So far this has happened on following boxes:
1. LongHorn Server Beta 3 (LH) with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
2. A complete new install of LH Server, i.e nothing on the box that is not part of a normal LH installation (notice that CLR 2.0 is part of a LH installation).
3. Win 2K3 sp2 with CLR 3.0 and Office 2007 installed
In the installations above I have no Visual Studio bits installed what-so-ever
The installation succeeded on a complete new Win 2K3 sp2 installation; i.e. no CLR 2.0 bits and no Office 2007 bits.
Hope someone can shed some light on this.
Niels
OK, so I have now done a successful installation on a W2K3 sp2 box with Office 2007 installed - but no CLR 2.0/3.0. Remember from the initial post in this thread that the installation fails on W2K3 sp2 with CLR 2.0 and Office 2007.
It seems that the failures some of us have seen are due to having CLR 2.0/3.0 installed.
After the successful installation I installed the CLR 2.0 SDK, CLR 3.0 and Orcas and everything works just fine.
Niels
|||
Are you sure you do not have Microsoft Visual Studio installed by some application?
This error is usually due to VS installed in a non-default location.
Please confirm if you have VS installed in a non-default location, and if so, make sure that you have devenv.exe.config installed in its default location. For VS8:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe.config
|||Hi,Thanks for coming back to me on this. The only thing that I have installed, when the installation has failed is CLR 2.0 and the CLR 2.0 SDK. I don't know if the SDK installation installs the VS bits (but I doubt it).
Niels
|||Please double-check if you have this file installed in a non-default location. VS installs as a pre-req for some components, and you might not notice that it is installed.|||Will do. However I'm on the road for another week, and won't be able to do it until I'm back.
Thanks again!
Niels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)