Cluster Node Communications

I just rebuilt a 2 node W2k/SQL2k cluster that resides in
a NT4 domain. The cluster itself seems to be working
fine, the website that runs off of the virtual SQL server
is running fine.
However, both nodes in the cluster are not able to
communicate with other machines in my 2 other
trusted/trusting domains. My other 2 domains are W2k
based domains. Prior to the rebuild there were no
communication problems accross domains.
If I try to browse to the nodes in Windows Explorer I get
the message "No logon servers currently available to
service your request" and if I try to logon to one of the
nodes at the console using my user name and domain, it
says the domain is unavailable.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Patrick G.
You can check a few things.
1. Make sure your domain trust(s) are still in place and functioning correctly. If you don't have the W2K support tools installed (ie in a prod environment), run dsa.msc and check that you can browse the remote domain and list groups and users in the rem
ote domain (eg attempt to add a global group from the remote domain to a local domain group - you can do this with committing the change).
2. Make sure the account you are using has a valid SQL Server login on the remote SQL Server (or your account is in the builtin admins group on the remote server - if the other domain are willing to trust you with local admins on the remote server or the
remote domain).
Are both domains in W2K native or do you have W2K and W2K3 forests in the mix?

Cluster and Mirroring with 2005

I am looking for some advice on the following problem.
I need a redundant SQL solution at our main location and a warm site in
a different, off site location. The warm site would only become a hot
site if we had a complete failure at the main location.
What I was thinking was to create a failover cluster at our main
location incase of simple hardware failure, the other server could take
over. At the warm site I would have a witness server and have the
database mirrored to a sql server there. I am going to be using sql
server 2005.
Is this a possible solution? If not, can you please point me in the
right direction. $$$ is not really an issue.
That is certainly a possible scenario. Remember that mirroring works at the
database level, not at the server level. You will have to do some
customization if you want to make it work for multiple databases. There are
also performance, latency, and network bandwidth costs for mirroring. The
lower your tolerance for data loss and outage time, the higher those costs.
If money really isn't an issue, you may want to look at SAN-level data
replication technologies. Since you will have a SAN for the cluster anyway,
this may be a better option. Make sure the SAN vendor can keep multiple
LUNS in synch or you may end up with mismatched data and log partitions,
causing a corrupt and unusable database.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<dwclark@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130250702.646778.85520@.g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I am looking for some advice on the following problem.
> I need a redundant SQL solution at our main location and a warm site in
> a different, off site location. The warm site would only become a hot
> site if we had a complete failure at the main location.
> What I was thinking was to create a failover cluster at our main
> location incase of simple hardware failure, the other server could take
> over. At the warm site I would have a witness server and have the
> database mirrored to a sql server there. I am going to be using sql
> server 2005.
> Is this a possible solution? If not, can you please point me in the
> right direction. $$$ is not really an issue.
>
|||I noticed that you said 'warm site'. By 'warm', I assume you can afford
losing some data during a site failover. If you can afford data loss of up
to 15 minutes or so, the plain old log shipping may be the simplest and
cheapest solution to consider. I'd keep it simple if a simple solution is
enough.
Linchi
<dwclark@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130250702.646778.85520@.g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I am looking for some advice on the following problem.
> I need a redundant SQL solution at our main location and a warm site in
> a different, off site location. The warm site would only become a hot
> site if we had a complete failure at the main location.
> What I was thinking was to create a failover cluster at our main
> location incase of simple hardware failure, the other server could take
> over. At the warm site I would have a witness server and have the
> database mirrored to a sql server there. I am going to be using sql
> server 2005.
> Is this a possible solution? If not, can you please point me in the
> right direction. $$$ is not really an issue.
>
|||Database mirroring is certainly an option, but so would be log shipping,
remote mirroring, or stretch clustering.
You might want to check out the following. Although for SS2K, most of the
information still applies, with the exception of DB mirroring.
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
Implementing Remote Mirroring and Stretch Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/hasog05.mspx
SQL Server 2005 Mission Critical High Availability
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...s/default.mspx
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

<dwclark@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130250702.646778.85520@.g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> I am looking for some advice on the following problem.
> I need a redundant SQL solution at our main location and a warm site in
> a different, off site location. The warm site would only become a hot
> site if we had a complete failure at the main location.
> What I was thinking was to create a failover cluster at our main
> location incase of simple hardware failure, the other server could take
> over. At the warm site I would have a witness server and have the
> database mirrored to a sql server there. I am going to be using sql
> server 2005.
> Is this a possible solution? If not, can you please point me in the
> right direction. $$$ is not really an issue.
>