Cluster Upgrade SP2 2005

Have recently performed an in-place upgrade of a 2 instance sql cluster from 2000 to 2005. The upgrade process went relatively smoothly. However, I am running into problems installed sp2. The first problem that I run into is that I have resrcmon.exe locked. I can click next, which is fine, but once I get past that point I get stuck during the installation process. I am updating DatabaseServices and Integration Services. It gets stuck on 'Awaiting first complete passive cluster node SQL-Test'. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
TimFor what it's worth I'm experiencing the same issue as described above. I'm using VMWare Server and have a Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition cluster with SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition clustered on top. This works well but in trying to apply SP2 it is stuck "Awaiting first complete passive cluster node". Slight difference from that described above, I had no locked files.

Any info that anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Ian
|||Unbelievable. Typically just as I finish writing the above, the process moved on. However it failed at the "Database Services" product. Everything else seemed to go okay but I'll have to check and will come back with any info I find.

Cheers,

Ian
|||I got my issue resolved...after talking to MS Support for half of a day. There are a lot of things that you have to make sure is just right. For example, when you install the services, it is easier to have the first node control both instances. From there, make sure you install the client tools on the default instance first. You also cannot have remote connections to the 2nd node in the cluster (will cause it to fail). Mine failed on installed the database services as well. Another thing we had to change was that when the network guys setup the cluster, the distributed transaction coordinator wasn't created as a clustered resource...it needs to be. let me know if this helps any.
Tim|||Tim,

Did you manage to continue with resrcmon.exe locked or did you find a way to stop it (it's part of the cluster so, short of stopping the cluster services I wasn't sure how else to stop it)?

We've got the DTC in place in our production cluster but I forgot to add it with my virtual one. I've done this now and will give it another go shortly.

Cheers,

Ian
|||At first I seen that resrcmon.exe was locked, and it did concern me. However, I don't think that it really matters if it is locked or not. If it is locked, you can still go through with the install, but it will prompt you to reboot later in the process. Try to kill all remote connections to either cluster node, place both instances on one node, and try to install that way. That will likely unlock resrcmon.|||I actually only have one instance, it is on the node from which I'm running the SP. WRT remote connections, I can't see anything apart from the clustering services that would be connecting remotely to the second node.

That said, I've only got resrcmon.exe locked now so am gonna proceed with the SP and see where I get - beauty of VMs is that I can just roll 'em back any time I like :-)
|||

I had the exact same issue. Installing the client tools on both nodes, and then moving the inst1 over to the passive node and running the SP2 from there seemed to do the trick.

|||I've finally had some level of success with this on my virtual cluster. But it was kinda forceful. I basically downed node 2, installed the SP onto node 1 (twice as it had "reboot required" on the SQL Server engine the first time). Then brought up node 2, failed over and downed node 1. Did the same to node 2 (twice) and brought node 1 back up. Testing seems to confirm this has gone okay. However, as we're in the process of trying to get a test cluster (for exactly this kind of thing - good as VMWare is, it's not the real thing) I'm not going to apply this to production until that's happened.

Cheers,

Ian
|||

Hi Ian,

Please help - when you downed the one node - was it shutdown or did you stop cluster service on the node or did you pause the node?

Thanks in advance :-)

|||

Hi there,

Basically I did the following.

Node 1 was up, node 2 was shutdown completely. I upgraded node 1 to SP2, then brought node 2 back online and failed over by shutting down node 1. I then upgraded node 2 to SP2, brought node 1 back online, failed over manually to confirm all as expected and left it at that. Bear in mind this was on virtual machines so is not a perfect test. I've yet to do this on our production cluster and am currently trying to get a proper physical test cluster in place to run through this for real.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Ian

Cluster Upgrade SP2 2005

Have recently performed an in-place upgrade of a 2 instance sql cluster from 2000 to 2005. The upgrade process went relatively smoothly. However, I am running into problems installed sp2. The first problem that I run into is that I have resrcmon.exe locked. I can click next, which is fine, but once I get past that point I get stuck during the installation process. I am updating DatabaseServices and Integration Services. It gets stuck on 'Awaiting first complete passive cluster node SQL-Test'. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
TimFor what it's worth I'm experiencing the same issue as described above. I'm using VMWare Server and have a Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition cluster with SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition clustered on top. This works well but in trying to apply SP2 it is stuck "Awaiting first complete passive cluster node". Slight difference from that described above, I had no locked files.

Any info that anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Ian
|||Unbelievable. Typically just as I finish writing the above, the process moved on. However it failed at the "Database Services" product. Everything else seemed to go okay but I'll have to check and will come back with any info I find.

Cheers,

Ian
|||I got my issue resolved...after talking to MS Support for half of a day. There are a lot of things that you have to make sure is just right. For example, when you install the services, it is easier to have the first node control both instances. From there, make sure you install the client tools on the default instance first. You also cannot have remote connections to the 2nd node in the cluster (will cause it to fail). Mine failed on installed the database services as well. Another thing we had to change was that when the network guys setup the cluster, the distributed transaction coordinator wasn't created as a clustered resource...it needs to be. let me know if this helps any.
Tim|||Tim,

Did you manage to continue with resrcmon.exe locked or did you find a way to stop it (it's part of the cluster so, short of stopping the cluster services I wasn't sure how else to stop it)?

We've got the DTC in place in our production cluster but I forgot to add it with my virtual one. I've done this now and will give it another go shortly.

Cheers,

Ian
|||At first I seen that resrcmon.exe was locked, and it did concern me. However, I don't think that it really matters if it is locked or not. If it is locked, you can still go through with the install, but it will prompt you to reboot later in the process. Try to kill all remote connections to either cluster node, place both instances on one node, and try to install that way. That will likely unlock resrcmon.|||I actually only have one instance, it is on the node from which I'm running the SP. WRT remote connections, I can't see anything apart from the clustering services that would be connecting remotely to the second node.

That said, I've only got resrcmon.exe locked now so am gonna proceed with the SP and see where I get - beauty of VMs is that I can just roll 'em back any time I like :-)
|||

I had the exact same issue. Installing the client tools on both nodes, and then moving the inst1 over to the passive node and running the SP2 from there seemed to do the trick.

|||I've finally had some level of success with this on my virtual cluster. But it was kinda forceful. I basically downed node 2, installed the SP onto node 1 (twice as it had "reboot required" on the SQL Server engine the first time). Then brought up node 2, failed over and downed node 1. Did the same to node 2 (twice) and brought node 1 back up. Testing seems to confirm this has gone okay. However, as we're in the process of trying to get a test cluster (for exactly this kind of thing - good as VMWare is, it's not the real thing) I'm not going to apply this to production until that's happened.

Cheers,

Ian
|||

Hi Ian,

Please help - when you downed the one node - was it shutdown or did you stop cluster service on the node or did you pause the node?

Thanks in advance :-)

|||

Hi there,

Basically I did the following.

Node 1 was up, node 2 was shutdown completely. I upgraded node 1 to SP2, then brought node 2 back online and failed over by shutting down node 1. I then upgraded node 2 to SP2, brought node 1 back online, failed over manually to confirm all as expected and left it at that. Bear in mind this was on virtual machines so is not a perfect test. I've yet to do this on our production cluster and am currently trying to get a proper physical test cluster in place to run through this for real.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Ian

sqlsql

Cluster Upgrade SP2 2005

Have recently performed an in-place upgrade of a 2 instance sql cluster from 2000 to 2005. The upgrade process went relatively smoothly. However, I am running into problems installed sp2. The first problem that I run into is that I have resrcmon.exe locked. I can click next, which is fine, but once I get past that point I get stuck during the installation process. I am updating DatabaseServices and Integration Services. It gets stuck on 'Awaiting first complete passive cluster node SQL-Test'. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
TimFor what it's worth I'm experiencing the same issue as described above. I'm using VMWare Server and have a Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition cluster with SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition clustered on top. This works well but in trying to apply SP2 it is stuck "Awaiting first complete passive cluster node". Slight difference from that described above, I had no locked files.

Any info that anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Ian
|||Unbelievable. Typically just as I finish writing the above, the process moved on. However it failed at the "Database Services" product. Everything else seemed to go okay but I'll have to check and will come back with any info I find.

Cheers,

Ian
|||I got my issue resolved...after talking to MS Support for half of a day. There are a lot of things that you have to make sure is just right. For example, when you install the services, it is easier to have the first node control both instances. From there, make sure you install the client tools on the default instance first. You also cannot have remote connections to the 2nd node in the cluster (will cause it to fail). Mine failed on installed the database services as well. Another thing we had to change was that when the network guys setup the cluster, the distributed transaction coordinator wasn't created as a clustered resource...it needs to be. let me know if this helps any.
Tim|||Tim,

Did you manage to continue with resrcmon.exe locked or did you find a way to stop it (it's part of the cluster so, short of stopping the cluster services I wasn't sure how else to stop it)?

We've got the DTC in place in our production cluster but I forgot to add it with my virtual one. I've done this now and will give it another go shortly.

Cheers,

Ian
|||At first I seen that resrcmon.exe was locked, and it did concern me. However, I don't think that it really matters if it is locked or not. If it is locked, you can still go through with the install, but it will prompt you to reboot later in the process. Try to kill all remote connections to either cluster node, place both instances on one node, and try to install that way. That will likely unlock resrcmon.|||I actually only have one instance, it is on the node from which I'm running the SP. WRT remote connections, I can't see anything apart from the clustering services that would be connecting remotely to the second node.

That said, I've only got resrcmon.exe locked now so am gonna proceed with the SP and see where I get - beauty of VMs is that I can just roll 'em back any time I like :-)
|||

I had the exact same issue. Installing the client tools on both nodes, and then moving the inst1 over to the passive node and running the SP2 from there seemed to do the trick.

|||I've finally had some level of success with this on my virtual cluster. But it was kinda forceful. I basically downed node 2, installed the SP onto node 1 (twice as it had "reboot required" on the SQL Server engine the first time). Then brought up node 2, failed over and downed node 1. Did the same to node 2 (twice) and brought node 1 back up. Testing seems to confirm this has gone okay. However, as we're in the process of trying to get a test cluster (for exactly this kind of thing - good as VMWare is, it's not the real thing) I'm not going to apply this to production until that's happened.

Cheers,

Ian
|||

Hi Ian,

Please help - when you downed the one node - was it shutdown or did you stop cluster service on the node or did you pause the node?

Thanks in advance :-)

|||

Hi there,

Basically I did the following.

Node 1 was up, node 2 was shutdown completely. I upgraded node 1 to SP2, then brought node 2 back online and failed over by shutting down node 1. I then upgraded node 2 to SP2, brought node 1 back online, failed over manually to confirm all as expected and left it at that. Bear in mind this was on virtual machines so is not a perfect test. I've yet to do this on our production cluster and am currently trying to get a proper physical test cluster in place to run through this for real.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Ian

cluster SSAS and SQL

Hi,
We have a default clusterd SQL server 2005 with sp2 installed in one cluster
group and then I have installed a default SSAS clustered instance in another
cluster group and it works fine (can failover and user can connect). However,
when I applying the sp2 to SSAS instance (with SSAS checked only) and it
failed; it not noly just failed but also take down my default clustered sql
server! We have to call MS to get our server up. It seems that, somehow,
registry for default sql server got messed up by SSAS sp2. My question are:
1.Is it possible or supported to install a default SQL server and a default
Analysis server on a cluster (each one in its own cluster group) with sp2;
2.why applying sp2 on a default AD instance in one cluster group affect a
default sql instance in another cluster group.
thanks much in advance.
Zack.
The answer is that SQL services share some common components. Plus, the
installer has some generic setup logic. Finally, are you using the same
service account for both services? If so, then permissions can get hosed
during a broken update.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"dp" <dp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90BAC728-916F-4497-B293-55920962EDE8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have a default clusterd SQL server 2005 with sp2 installed in one
> cluster
> group and then I have installed a default SSAS clustered instance in
> another
> cluster group and it works fine (can failover and user can connect).
> However,
> when I applying the sp2 to SSAS instance (with SSAS checked only) and it
> failed; it not noly just failed but also take down my default clustered
> sql
> server! We have to call MS to get our server up. It seems that, somehow,
> registry for default sql server got messed up by SSAS sp2. My question
> are:
> 1. Is it possible or supported to install a default SQL server and a
> default
> Analysis server on a cluster (each one in its own cluster group) with sp2;
> 2. why applying sp2 on a default AD instance in one cluster group affect a
> default sql instance in another cluster group.
> thanks much in advance.
> Zack.
>
|||Zack, were you ever able to upgrade your SSAS in the cluster?
We are having the same or similar issues. We upgraded our cluster from SP1
to SP2. The SQL Server components upgraded to SP2, but the SSAS failed and
is still at SP1. After the upgrade one of our clustered instances did not
come back online. Error logs read something like, "...Cluster IP/Network
resource already in use..."
Well, I called MS because our production SQL 2005 cluster was hosed. The
issue, reg key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microso ft SQL
Server\MSSQL.1\Cluster\ClusterName" had the incorrect instance name for the
MSSQL.1 instance (in our case). We had to run some cluster commands to
remove the MSCS checkpoint, changed the key value to the correct instance
name, then reapply MSCS checkpoint.
This got our SQL Server instance back online. But we still can't update
SSAS to SP2. Maybe the two issues are not related, but I have a gut feeling
they are. The incorrect 'ClusterName' value happened to be the instance name
for our SSAS.
I still have the MS support ticket open trying to determine if the cluster
registry keys are in the correct state on both nodes.
Anyone else having issues with failover cluster anaylsis server upgrade to
SP2?
"dp" wrote:

> Hi,
> We have a default clusterd SQL server 2005 with sp2 installed in one cluster
> group and then I have installed a default SSAS clustered instance in another
> cluster group and it works fine (can failover and user can connect). However,
> when I applying the sp2 to SSAS instance (with SSAS checked only) and it
> failed; it not noly just failed but also take down my default clustered sql
> server! We have to call MS to get our server up. It seems that, somehow,
> registry for default sql server got messed up by SSAS sp2. My question are:
> 1.Is it possible or supported to install a default SQL server and a default
> Analysis server on a cluster (each one in its own cluster group) with sp2;
> 2.why applying sp2 on a default AD instance in one cluster group affect a
> default sql instance in another cluster group.
> thanks much in advance.
> Zack.
>

Cluster SQL 2000

My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
Is it possible on Cluster?
Hello.K
Since SQL uses 1433 as the default port and each instance sounds like its
running on its own node, I would say yes?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"kersob" <lkm> wrote in message
news:ODcWDPdWEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
> SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
> instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
> Is it possible on Cluster?
>
> Hello.K
>
|||Host nodes don't have anything to do with port numbers. Notice that each
SQL resource group (virtual server) has its own IP address and network name.
Therefore, you can have each instance on 1433 if you desire. HOWEVER, there
are some gotchas. If you are hoping to connect to VirtualServername rather
than VirtualServerName\InstanceName, it won't work with anything higher than
MDAC 2.6. Even if you put a named instance on 1433, the client library
'knows' it isn't the default instance. MDAC will report an error that you
are connecting to the wrong instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"kersob" <lkm> wrote in message
news:ODcWDPdWEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My cu has the Win2003 Cluster 4 nodes with 1 Default and 3 Named instances
> SQL 2000, each instance is on different node, we noticed that every
> instances have configured with TCP port 1433.
> Is it possible on Cluster?
>
> Hello.K
>

Cluster services overhead

Consider the scenario ...
Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks
Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks BUT in a clustered environment
We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
clustering be causing the overhead?
TIA,
JackIt is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to =
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are =
you running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by =
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered =
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the =
instances configured to use the same amount of resources? =20
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to =
the .clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there =
will have additional comments orideas.
--=20
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
>=20
> Consider the scenario ...
>=20
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks=20
>=20
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
>=20
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance=20
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,=20
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for=20
> clustering be causing the overhead?
>=20
> TIA,
> Jack
>|||I have never felt the presence of clustering on any of my SQL clusters. The
cluster service has such a small footprint. Could it be that you are not
comparing like DBs?
Cheers,
Rod
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OYr8Ip9TEHA.716@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are you
running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the
instances configured to use the same amount of resources?
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to the
.clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there will hav
e
additional comments orideas.
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>|||I am unfamiliar with the Compaq hardware mentioned, but I do know that
hardware that uses SCSI technology or host controller based caching can
suffer greatly in a clustered environment. All host caching has to be
turned off in a clustered environment to avoid data integrity problems.
This can severely impact disk performacne, especially with disk writes in a
RAID-5 configuration. While this may not apply to your circumstance, it is
the primary reason I do not recommend clustering with SCSI hardware.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>

Cluster services overhead

Consider the scenario ...
Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks
Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks BUT in a clustered environment
We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
clustering be causing the overhead?
TIA,
Jack
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to =
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are =
you running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by =
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered =
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the =
instances configured to use the same amount of resources? =20
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to =
the .clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there =
will have additional comments orideas.
--=20
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>=20
> Consider the scenario ...
>=20
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks=20
>=20
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000=20
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
>=20
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance=20
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,=20
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for=20
> clustering be causing the overhead?
>=20
> TIA,
> Jack
>
|||I have never felt the presence of clustering on any of my SQL clusters. The
cluster service has such a small footprint. Could it be that you are not
comparing like DBs?
Cheers,
Rod
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OYr8Ip9TEHA.716@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are you
running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the
instances configured to use the same amount of resources?
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to the
..clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there will have
additional comments orideas.
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>
|||I am unfamiliar with the Compaq hardware mentioned, but I do know that
hardware that uses SCSI technology or host controller based caching can
suffer greatly in a clustered environment. All host caching has to be
turned off in a clustered environment to avoid data integrity problems.
This can severely impact disk performacne, especially with disk writes in a
RAID-5 configuration. While this may not apply to your circumstance, it is
the primary reason I do not recommend clustering with SCSI hardware.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>

Cluster services overhead

Consider the scenario ...
Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks
Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
disks BUT in a clustered environment
We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
clustering be causing the overhead?
TIA,
JackIt is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to =have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are =you running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by ="instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered =box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the =instances configured to use the same amount of resources?
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to =the .clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there =will have additional comments orideas.
-- Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Consider the scenario ...
> > Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000 > disks > > Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000 > disks BUT in a clustered environment
> > We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance > than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version, > windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for > clustering be causing the overhead?
> > TIA,
> Jack
>|||I have never felt the presence of clustering on any of my SQL clusters. The
cluster service has such a small footprint. Could it be that you are not
comparing like DBs?
Cheers,
Rod
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OYr8Ip9TEHA.716@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
It is possible, although I would not expect the clustering technology to
have a noticable impact on performance. You talk about instances. Are you
running multiple instances of SQL Server on the same hardware, or by
"instance" do you mean Server A (standalone box) and Server B (clustered
box)? If you are talking about multiple instances on one server are the
instances configured to use the same amount of resources?
This reply will be posted within .server and it will also be copied to the
.clustering newsgroup. Hopefully the experts that hang out there will have
additional comments orideas.
--
Keith
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>|||I am unfamiliar with the Compaq hardware mentioned, but I do know that
hardware that uses SCSI technology or host controller based caching can
suffer greatly in a clustered environment. All host caching has to be
turned off in a clustered environment to avoid data integrity problems.
This can severely impact disk performacne, especially with disk writes in a
RAID-5 configuration. While this may not apply to your circumstance, it is
the primary reason I do not recommend clustering with SCSI hardware.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Jack A" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b07301c44fcf$51c472b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Consider the scenario ...
> Instance 1 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks
> Instance 2 of Sql Server running on Compaq with MSA1000
> disks BUT in a clustered environment
> We are finding that Instance 1 offers better performance
> than 2 for the same configuration (memory, sql version,
> windows etc). Could the use of cluster services for
> clustering be causing the overhead?
> TIA,
> Jack
>

cluster questions

Hi all, I had 2 questions regarding clusters:-
1. Is it possible to have an Active-Active configuration with 1 instance
running 2000 & 1 instance running 2005?
2. Is it recommended or required to have cluster servers part of an active
directory domain? Currently we have 2 servers that are part of our domain
and we are contemplating using them for a cluster. They meet all the
hardware & software requirements, but need to check on AD.
TIA!
Yes to both.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OHeRQR$RGHA.440@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi all, I had 2 questions regarding clusters:-
1. Is it possible to have an Active-Active configuration with 1 instance
running 2000 & 1 instance running 2005?
2. Is it recommended or required to have cluster servers part of an active
directory domain? Currently we have 2 servers that are part of our domain
and we are contemplating using them for a cluster. They meet all the
hardware & software requirements, but need to check on AD.
TIA!
|||Yes to both. I have run side-by-side installations of 2000 and 2005 in both
clustered and non-clustered environments. Everything works, including both
sets of client tools.
As for #2, cluster nodes must be members of a domain, either NT4 or Active
Directory. They must be member servers, not domain controllers.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OHeRQR$RGHA.440@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi all, I had 2 questions regarding clusters:-
> 1. Is it possible to have an Active-Active configuration with 1 instance
> running 2000 & 1 instance running 2005?
> 2. Is it recommended or required to have cluster servers part of an active
> directory domain? Currently we have 2 servers that are part of our domain
> and we are contemplating using them for a cluster. They meet all the
> hardware & software requirements, but need to check on AD.
> TIA!
>
|||So the consensus is that I would need the cluster servers to be member of a
domain... thanks
If I am new to setting up a cluster, is there a document/resource cheat
guide I can read to get up to speed?
TIA
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWMfUyESGHA.4920@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yes to both. I have run side-by-side installations of 2000 and 2005 in
> both clustered and non-clustered environments. Everything works,
> including both sets of client tools.
> As for #2, cluster nodes must be members of a domain, either NT4 or
> Active Directory. They must be member servers, not domain controllers.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> <param@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OHeRQR$RGHA.440@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>

Cluster on Same Box (for educational/training purposes)

Is it possible to setup a second instance of SQL Server Enterprise on a box
and setup clustering? I have someone asking me that has only one Server to
do this with and they want to learn about Clustering.
Win2003 <-> Win2003 (SameBox)
OR
Can you run SQL Server on an XP machine and still setup clustering on a
Win2K03 Server and cluster the 2?
XP <--> Win2003 (Two Boxes)
Thanks
Erik
Cluster on XP <--> Win2003 (Two Boxes) -- No, the hardware needs to be
identical.
A better solution would be to run PC emulation software like VMWARE and
create a 2-node virtual cluster on one Windows 2003 computer.
Chris Skorlinski
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply directly to the thread with any updates.
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Cluster memory issue

I'm currently running 2 SQl Instance as an active/active
cluster.
Both servers are identical running windows 2000 Advance
server.
SQL Server Enterprise 2000 with settings exactly the same
on both servers,
8GB of memory, both servers are new builds, Windows sees
all the memory, boot.ini as /3gb /pae switches and SQL's
are awe configured.
Instance 1 running as default virtual server on node 1
Max Server memory 7406
SQL runs using 7.23GB of memory.
Instance 2 running as named instance of virtual server on
node 2
Max Server memory 7406
SQL runs using only 3.73 GB as max
How can I get node 2 to also use 7.23GB.
But I'm getting excessive paging so would use more memory
if it could get it.
First, you must use Performance monitor to get true memory settings. Task
manager will not report correct settings. If you are paging, you need to
back down on the max memory setting. I would recommend 6.5 GB for an 8GB
system as a starting point. You can adjust upwards until the system begins
to page then back down slightly. The server needs some memory for the OS
and some for non-sql apps (like the login console). Also, you really should
run these systems at about 3.5GB each so in case one fails over, you can
hold both on the same server. Right now, you may not be able to
successfully fail over since neither system has enough free memory to start
the other instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ray" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27e1401c46401$a942d1d0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm currently running 2 SQl Instance as an active/active
> cluster.
> Both servers are identical running windows 2000 Advance
> server.
> SQL Server Enterprise 2000 with settings exactly the same
> on both servers,
> 8GB of memory, both servers are new builds, Windows sees
> all the memory, boot.ini as /3gb /pae switches and SQL's
> are awe configured.
> Instance 1 running as default virtual server on node 1
> Max Server memory 7406
> SQL runs using 7.23GB of memory.
> Instance 2 running as named instance of virtual server on
> node 2
> Max Server memory 7406
> SQL runs using only 3.73 GB as max
> How can I get node 2 to also use 7.23GB.
> But I'm getting excessive paging so would use more memory
> if it could get it.
>
|||I agree with Geoff. The main reason that you are using SQL Server Failover Clustering is that High Availability is your highest priority. So, you do not want to compromise that. In this scenario, it is recommended
that each instance of SQL Server on either node use upto 3.5GB of memory.
Here is an example from " Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability (MS Press) ISBN 0-7356-1920-4 " that will make this easier to understand.
Consider this example: you have a two-node cluster with three SQL Server instances. Instance 1, which currently resides on Node 1, has 7 GB of memory configured using AWE. Node 2 houses Instance 2, which
has 5 GB of memory allocated with AWE, and one instance that is not using any advanced options and is currently using 1.5 GB of memory. Each node individually has a total of 8 GB of physical memory. A
problem occurs on Node 1, causing a failover. The instance tries to restart on Node 2, but it cannot. You now have a failed set of SQL Server resources that cannot come online, causing an availability problem.
Why? Well, to use AWE, you need to guarantee that the memory you told SQL Server to use will be there. A failover is basically a stop and start on another server. In this case, you were already using 6.5 of the
available 8 GB of memory. 6.5 + 7 does not equal 8, and it does not matter how big your page file is. Your instance will not grab the memory for AWE. It might, however, start up, but it will only grab the amount of
memory that it can up to 2 GB . Now you are risking memory starvation of the operating system, and this can affect all instances.
So how do you prevent this? By planning, these are the types of scenarios you need to play out in your head when proposing the number of instances on a cluster. Your management might see a two-node cluster
and say, "Hey, why is this second server doing nothing? Get something on there!", leaving you in the state of the previous example. The way you can balance memory in this case would be to give two
instances that need a fixed amount of memory 3 GB each and let the other one be dynamic (or set it to 1 GB or 1.5 GB to allow room for the operating system).If you cannot live with this, you will need another cluster
or set of servers to handle this workload. The recommendation was basically to halve the memory,which might lead some to believe that you are wasting resources, but again, is performance or availability your
goal? By definition, if you are reading this book and implementing things like a cluster, you are probably saying that availability is your highest priority. If you never have to failover and you left the instances at 7
GB, 5 GB, and dynamic, things would work great. But once a failover happened, all bets would be off.
Additional Information
=======================
-- In your case, you do not need to use /3GB. AWE and /PAE should be sufficient.
-- When starting with both the /PAE and the /3GB switches, the system may not start
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=817566
HOW TO: Configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=274750
Microsoft Whitepaper - SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/techinf...vercluster.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High Availability Series
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Microsoft Webcasts
Introduction to Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb051001.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server: Things You Should Know
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb032602.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server Basic Setup, Maintenance, and Service Pack http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb061002.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering Disaster Recovery Procedures
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb101802.asp
Troubleshooting SQL 2000 Virtual Server and Service Pack Setups for Failover Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/default...lurb020703.asp
Q243218 INF: Installation Order for SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243218
Q260758 - INF: Frequently Asked Questions - SQL Server 2000 - Failover Clustering
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=260758
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

Cluster licencing

I have a question regarding licencing on a sql server active/passive cluster. If we have more than 1 instance of the sql server do we have to have to buy another licence for each additional instance?
A Single-instance cluster requires licensing for a single host node.
Multi-instance clustering requires licensing for all host nodes. I am
assuming you are licensing per-processor.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Robert" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B92B51F4-2C4F-4A66-B53D-1DCAE282D8D8@.microsoft.com...
> I have a question regarding licencing on a sql server active/passive
cluster. If we have more than 1 instance of the sql server do we have to
have to buy another licence for each additional instance?
|||So is it true to say.
Server based license
If you have Active/Passive, and you have 4 instances, each in it's own cluster group, but on the same two nodes, you have to purchase 4 sets licenses. One for each instance.
I thought (from reading the 6.5 and 7.0 documentation) that you licensed the node, and in a 2 node cluster, regardless of active/passive or active/active you'd need to purchase 2 licenses (+ relevant CALs).
However, according to a Microsoft consultance (who's gone away to confirm) you only need to buy the license for the active node.
Sorry if this adds to the confusion.
|||Since you are clustering, you need Enterprise Edition. EE license allows
multiple instances on a host computer for the same processor license. The
exception for a licensing is when you are in single-instance cluster. Then
you only need to license one hose node's worth of processors. If you have
more than one instance, you must license ALL processors in the cluster.
Again, check with your local MS rep to get the exact wording.
(If you think this is confusing, you should try to figure out MSDE and
client tools licensing.)
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Beverley" <Bev.Brindle@.barclays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8C12096A-8761-4589-82A3-C8B1E360E2B2@.microsoft.com...
> So is it true to say.
> Server based license
> If you have Active/Passive, and you have 4 instances, each in it's own
cluster group, but on the same two nodes, you have to purchase 4 sets
licenses. One for each instance.
> I thought (from reading the 6.5 and 7.0 documentation) that you licensed
the node, and in a 2 node cluster, regardless of active/passive or
active/active you'd need to purchase 2 licenses (+ relevant CALs).
> However, according to a Microsoft consultance (who's gone away to confirm)
you only need to buy the license for the active node.
> Sorry if this adds to the confusion.
|||Sorry to keep going on about this, but were putting strategic infrastructure in place, and I want to make sure that we are adequatley licensed.
So with clustering can you use EE Server License, or is Processor License compulsory.
And if EE Server Based is OK, does it apply to each instance (e.g. Server License x No Instances)
Im differentiating between Server and Processor on the basis that if your using Server you have to purchase CALs, but not if your using Processor.
We've purchased 60,000 CALs, so were going to use Server for all SQL unless its userbase is WWW based. What would we need to do for clustered SQL? We're intending a maxumim of 4 instances per cluster, over a 2 node active / passive cluster.
|||Again, the answer is "It Depends". You can use EE Server based with either
device or user CALs. EE allows multiple instances on a single host with one
license. The 'single-instance cluster exception' is actually a grant to use
the licenses on a failover node at no additional charge.
Here is an excerpt from the SQL licensing FAQ that seems to apply:
--snip--
Q. How does licensing work for computers that run SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition in failover scenarios?
A. Failover support, where servers are clustered together and set to
pick up each others' processing duties if one computer should fail, is
available only in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition, just as it was with
SQL Server 7.0. Failover support can be configured in one of two ways:
a.. Active/active. In the active/active configuration, all servers
in the cluster regularly process information, but one or more take on the
workload of a failed server.
b.. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
--snip--
You can read the entire FAQ here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Beverley" <Bev.Brindle@.barclays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AA19071B-9CBD-4B06-97A6-3B692301BF21@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry to keep going on about this, but were putting strategic
infrastructure in place, and I want to make sure that we are adequatley
licensed.
> So with clustering can you use EE Server License, or is Processor License
compulsory.
> And if EE Server Based is OK, does it apply to each instance (e.g. Server
License x No Instances)
> Im differentiating between Server and Processor on the basis that if your
using Server you have to purchase CALs, but not if your using Processor.
> We've purchased 60,000 CALs, so were going to use Server for all SQL
unless its userbase is WWW based. What would we need to do for clustered
SQL? We're intending a maxumim of 4 instances per cluster, over a 2 node
active / passive cluster.
>
begin 666 ts.gif
J1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````/___R'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```(!1 `[
`
end
|||Thanks for the clarity

Cluster Instance Naming

I have a 2 node cluster - may be grown to more node ... would like to
install 4 instances, to separate databases by SLA's and workload priority
....
What are suggested naming conventions ?
I have
DBINST1 - instance 1
DBINST2\I2 - instance 2
DBINST3\I3 - instance 3
DBINST4\I4 - instance 4
Servers are 8CPU, 16GB RAM each
Just to keep things consistant, I only use Named Instances on a cluster.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
CareerBuilder.com
"Seme Rollansa" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uietPVC%23FHA.1988@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I have a 2 node cluster - may be grown to more node ... would like to
>install 4 instances, to separate databases by SLA's and workload priority
>...
> What are suggested naming conventions ?
> I have
> DBINST1 - instance 1
> DBINST2\I2 - instance 2
> DBINST3\I3 - instance 3
> DBINST4\I4 - instance 4
> Servers are 8CPU, 16GB RAM each
>
>
|||We usually keep the default instance around just incase there are systems
out there that can not connect to a Named Instance--and there are.
As far as naming conventions go, you have virtual server names that should
follow your organization's internal server name policies, regardless of SQL
Server, then the instance names should distinguish themselves.
Two schools of thought here. One is to keep the names meaningless other
than some sort of ordering convention as you've indicated as a security
precautions. The other school of thought recommends a meaningful name that
would connote the use of the system.
In either case, as Geoff suggests, keep it consistent.
Take your pick.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:usi761Q%23FHA.916@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Just to keep things consistant, I only use Named Instances on a cluster.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> CareerBuilder.com
> "Seme Rollansa" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uietPVC%23FHA.1988@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
sqlsql

Cluster Install hangs

Trying to install oe instance of SQL Server 2000 Enterprise (32-bit) on a
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise two node cluster. I am installing on the
node which the cluster group is currently on. Cluster group only contains
disk drives. I have an IP set aside for SQL.
Go through the installation, get to the point where you enter the IP
address. I add in the IP in the wizard and it accepts it - it moves it down
to the lower half of the screen. It is at this point I click 'Next' that the
install hangs. It hangs for about an hour. I have rebooted after each
failure. The only thing that is sent to the application log is this:
Hanging application _INS5576._MP, version 5.53.168.0, hang module hungapp,
version 0.0.0.0, hang address 0x00000000.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Anybody see this before? Any ideas? Usually this is a straight forward
installation. Thanks in advance for any help.
TX:
Did you uninstall an instance before this happened? I'm having this exact
problem, and while there is a BUG KB Article about it
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293788/en-us); this isn't my exact problem.
The install hangs on the DialogShowSdDiskGroups action, but my conditions
don't match the article.
Maybe this will help you. If you have found another answer, please let me
know.
Scott Martin
"TX_KniveS" wrote:

> Trying to install oe instance of SQL Server 2000 Enterprise (32-bit) on a
> Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise two node cluster. I am installing on the
> node which the cluster group is currently on. Cluster group only contains
> disk drives. I have an IP set aside for SQL.
> Go through the installation, get to the point where you enter the IP
> address. I add in the IP in the wizard and it accepts it - it moves it down
> to the lower half of the screen. It is at this point I click 'Next' that the
> install hangs. It hangs for about an hour. I have rebooted after each
> failure. The only thing that is sent to the application log is this:
> Hanging application _INS5576._MP, version 5.53.168.0, hang module hungapp,
> version 0.0.0.0, hang address 0x00000000.
> For more information, see Help and Support Center at
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
> Anybody see this before? Any ideas? Usually this is a straight forward
> installation. Thanks in advance for any help.
|||Yes, we got the install to complete. We think our issue was this: We had
some disk drives offline within another cluster group. Although these drives
had nothing to do with the installation of SQL, the fact that they were down
we believe caused the SQL installation to hang.
"ScottM" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> TX:
> Did you uninstall an instance before this happened? I'm having this exact
> problem, and while there is a BUG KB Article about it
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293788/en-us); this isn't my exact problem.
> The install hangs on the DialogShowSdDiskGroups action, but my conditions
> don't match the article.
> Maybe this will help you. If you have found another answer, please let me
> know.
> Scott Martin
> "TX_KniveS" wrote:
|||I feel a little dumb now. I had a look at the other virtual servers, and one
of the resource names for a physical disk in ANOTHER virtual server was named
the same as the virtual server it was in. I didn't follow the KB Article
myself clearly enough.
Thanks for the response, it put me down the path of looking at my other
virtual servers.
Scott Martin
"TX_KniveS" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, we got the install to complete. We think our issue was this: We had
> some disk drives offline within another cluster group. Although these drives
> had nothing to do with the installation of SQL, the fact that they were down
> we believe caused the SQL installation to hang.
> "ScottM" wrote:
|||All cluster groups must be online or the SQL installer will hang/crash.
This is "by design" as far as I can tell.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"ScottM" <ScottM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2AAD72E3-ABE5-48D9-8AC3-4559D8808C51@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TX:
> Did you uninstall an instance before this happened? I'm having this exact
> problem, and while there is a BUG KB Article about it
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293788/en-us); this isn't my exact
> problem.
> The install hangs on the DialogShowSdDiskGroups action, but my conditions
> don't match the article.
> Maybe this will help you. If you have found another answer, please let me
> know.
> Scott Martin
> "TX_KniveS" wrote:

Cluster Failover

What happens to a running query when SQL instance failover? Will the query fail?yes

Cluster and Instances

I have been installed a cluster
SQLSERVER1
and
SQLSERVER2\SQL2
When SQL1 fail, SQL2 take the SQL instance and vice-versa
My Problem is that the SQLSERVER1 don't have a associated instance like SQL2
I want to configure my SQLSERVER1 to access through the instance name =
SQLSERVER1\SQL1
I need to reinstall the SQLSERVER1? or exists something to set the default
instance to a particular instance?
Thanks a lot
AA
You will need to reinstall SQL and create a new instance. If you have
enough disk devices you can create the new instance, detach the databases
from the default instance. Copy the files or reassign the device within
cluster manager to the new resource group and attach them to the new
instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"AA" <aa@.personal.net.py> wrote in message
news:uZ4ByXYeEHA.2812@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have been installed a cluster
> SQLSERVER1
> and
> SQLSERVER2\SQL2
> When SQL1 fail, SQL2 take the SQL instance and vice-versa
> My Problem is that the SQLSERVER1 don't have a associated instance like
SQL2
> I want to configure my SQLSERVER1 to access through the instance name =
> SQLSERVER1\SQL1
> I need to reinstall the SQLSERVER1? or exists something to set the default
> instance to a particular instance?
> Thanks a lot
> AA
>
|||Thanks, So, I reinstall and create a new instance but. How can I "uninstall"
the previous instance?
Thanks again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:eFNF3eYeEHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> You will need to reinstall SQL and create a new instance. If you have
> enough disk devices you can create the new instance, detach the databases
> from the default instance. Copy the files or reassign the device within
> cluster manager to the new resource group and attach them to the new
> instance.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "AA" <aa@.personal.net.py> wrote in message
> news:uZ4ByXYeEHA.2812@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> SQL2
default
>
|||Look at 'Maintaining a Failover Cluster' topic in BOL.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"AA" <aa@.personal.net.py> wrote in message
news:e9W56nYeEHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, So, I reinstall and create a new instance but. How can I
"uninstall"[vbcol=seagreen]
> the previous instance?
> Thanks again
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:eFNF3eYeEHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
databases[vbcol=seagreen]
like[vbcol=seagreen]
=
> default
>
|||Thanks!
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:uK2hs6YeEHA.1732@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look at 'Maintaining a Failover Cluster' topic in BOL.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "AA" <aa@.personal.net.py> wrote in message
> news:e9W56nYeEHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "uninstall"
> databases
within[vbcol=seagreen]
> like
name
> =
>
sqlsql

Cluster - 2000/2005 side-by-side install

I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||The statement is correct. One group = one virtual server = one instance.
You will either need to add more shared disk(s) to your cluster or remove SQL from some existing disk resources. Disk resources cannot be shared in multiple groups. As such, they can only be used by one virtual server/instance at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eq7YDyq%23FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.
|||That's what I thought... Thanks!
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:uqMvcYt%23FHA.1336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
The statement is correct. One group = one virtual server = one instance.
You will either need to add more shared disk(s) to your cluster or remove SQL from some existing disk resources. Disk resources cannot be shared in multiple groups. As such, they can only be used by one virtual server/instance at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eq7YDyq%23FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
In your last line when you say that "You cannot install the SQL2005 instance in the existing SQL2000 virtual server" do you mean the existing cluster group where sql2000 resides?
Also, if the answer to that is yes (meaning I cannot just install sql2005 in my current group), what are my options for sharing the current disk resources or reconfiguring the current disk resources so that I can give the new cluster_group for sql2005 some disk resources.
Thanks in advance...
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message news:Of0GDfg%23FHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is a perfectly valid multi-instance cluster configuration. The new SQL 2005 installation will need its own IP address, disk resource(s), and network name. This will create a second virtual server for the SQL 2005 instance. Once you uninstall the SQL 2000 instance, you can re-assigne the disk resources to the new SQL 2005 instance. You cannot install the SQL 2005 instance in the existing SQL 2000 virtual server.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"AlanH" <AlanH@.community.nospam> wrote in message news:eQXXv6e%23FHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a two node active/passive win2003/sql 2000 cluster. Can I do a side-by-side install of a sql2005 named instance on this cluster? This is for a test environment were for a limited time (6 months) I need to provide both a sql2000 and sql2005 environment and I would rather not purchase additional hardware.

Client Tools and express

Hi ,

I have installed the SQL 2005 Client tools in anticipation of our servers been upgraded to SQL 2005 soon. I would like to create a local instance of SQL 2005 i.e. Express so I can try out functionality while I wait for the servers to be upgraded.

Is this possible or is now installing Express going to mess up some of the currently installed tools?

Help appreciated.

No, this is sure possible.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Client Problems

Hello:

I have an instance of SQL Express in my Server with the necesary configurations(enabling TCP/IP connections).

The problem is: with .udl files, I can create a connections very well in other machines, but, I my Win application can′t connect to the server. My connections string is:

"Data Source=192.168.1.106\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=Products;User ID=sa;Password=sqlsa"

I installed SQL Native Client in the machines where my application is executed (sqlncli.msi).

Thanks

Do you have SQL Browser running on the remote computer and an Exception created in the remote computers firewall? SQL Browser is required to enumerate the named instances on a server. Check out the FAQ at the top of this forum for a pointer to instructions about remote connections.

Mike

|||

Yes I have the SQL Browser running. But, the problem is in the clients. Could be a SQL Native Client?

|||

Hi,

I got the same problem.

I think this is a taff problem when connecting to remote comp from .net application

I use:

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microDB;Integrated Security=SSPI;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

OR

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microdb;Integrated Security=True;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

And found EROR message when running aplication from client comp.

"... Login failed foruser MYCOMP\Guest... "

Anyone can help us?

regards.

md5

|||

hi,

MD5 wrote:

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microdb;Integrated Security=True;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

And found EROR message when running aplication from client comp.

"... Login failed foruser MYCOMP\Guest... "

actually you pass to much info to your connection string.. the connection can be "trusted" or "not", but not both.. in this case, as you pass both, SQLExpress uses integrated security, and the "guest" (Windows OS based) login is (fortunately) not granted access to the SQLExpress instance..

so you have to choose waht you want..

integrated security (Integrated Security=True

OR

standard SQL Server authentication (User ID=micro;Password=micro

?

regards

Client Problems

Hello:

I have an instance of SQL Express in my Server with the necesary configurations(enabling TCP/IP connections).

The problem is: with .udl files, I can create a connections very well in other machines, but, I my Win application can′t connect to the server. My connections string is:

"Data Source=192.168.1.106\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=Products;User ID=sa;Password=sqlsa"

I installed SQL Native Client in the machines where my application is executed (sqlncli.msi).

Thanks

Do you have SQL Browser running on the remote computer and an Exception created in the remote computers firewall? SQL Browser is required to enumerate the named instances on a server. Check out the FAQ at the top of this forum for a pointer to instructions about remote connections.

Mike

|||

Yes I have the SQL Browser running. But, the problem is in the clients. Could be a SQL Native Client?

|||

Hi,

I got the same problem.

I think this is a taff problem when connecting to remote comp from .net application

I use:

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microDB;Integrated Security=SSPI;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

OR

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microdb;Integrated Security=True;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

And found EROR message when running aplication from client comp.

"... Login failed foruser MYCOMP\Guest... "

Anyone can help us?

regards.

md5

|||

hi,

MD5 wrote:

Data Source=MYREMOTESVR\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=microdb;Integrated Security=True;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=micro;Password=micro

And found EROR message when running aplication from client comp.

"... Login failed foruser MYCOMP\Guest... "

actually you pass to much info to your connection string.. the connection can be "trusted" or "not", but not both.. in this case, as you pass both, SQLExpress uses integrated security, and the "guest" (Windows OS based) login is (fortunately) not granted access to the SQLExpress instance..

so you have to choose waht you want..

integrated security (Integrated Security=True

OR

standard SQL Server authentication (User ID=micro;Password=micro

?

regards