Cluster SQL Active-Active

My friends:
I need document information about the installation process of SQL in Cluster
with two instances, both active, one in each Server. In summary I want to
install a Cluster of SQL Active-Active, for take greater benefit of both
Cluster nodes.
Even though I have looked for in BOL (follow the recommendations of Maxi), I
had investigate and knock the same trouble, there are only information about
the Active-Pasive installation, and I'll wish a procedure or document about
Active-Active setup and installation.
If someone knows where I can find the information, or somebody understand
about Active-Active installation, please give it me know. Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Carlo Sorrel
Hello Carlo,
Once you have installed the first instance of virtual SQL Server 2000 then the steps for installing the second instance of virtual SQL Server 2000 is exactly the same. The second virtual instance of SQL Server 2000
will need a seperate shared drive (you cannot use the shared drive that you used for the first instance), unique SQL IP Address (again you cannot use the one you used for your windows cluster ip or the first sql
server ip) and unique SQL network name. Also, if the first virtual instance is a default instance then the second instance can ONLY be a named instance. You CANNOT have two default virtual SQL Server 2000
instance on the same cluster. To have both the instances similar, many customers install both instances of virtual SQL Server 2000 as named instances.
Since you have multiple instances (2 in your case), you will need to ensure that all server nodes have the same resources (processor, memory) and it is enough to handle the instances that could potentially fail to
that node. Another important consideration is to cap memory usage of the instance of SQL Server 2000 with max server memory. Especially if AWE memory is enabled, max server memory must be set in a
multiple-instance cluster to prevent starving the server node.
If you have a Windows Server 2003 EE cluster then you may find the following webcast useful
TechNet Support WebCast: How to install a Microsoft SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 cluster
Discusses how to install Microsoft SQL Server 2000 clustering on Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and differences between Microsoft Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888121
For Win2K Adv Server cluster, you may find the following whitepaper useful
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Review the above and feel free to post any other qs that you may have.
Additional Information
=======================
Here is some other related links that you may find useful
INF: Clustered SQL Server Do's, Don'ts, and Basic Warnings
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=254321
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
HTH,
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
|||Hi
Just be aware, Active-Active does not mean load balancing. It means 2
instances of different databases, each running by default on one of the
nodes of a cluster.
The references Uttam has supplied are great and will help you along.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Carlo Sorrel" <csorrel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#nPFJo7AFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> My friends:
>
> I need document information about the installation process of SQL in
Cluster
> with two instances, both active, one in each Server. In summary I want to
> install a Cluster of SQL Active-Active, for take greater benefit of both
> Cluster nodes.
>
> Even though I have looked for in BOL (follow the recommendations of Maxi),
I
> had investigate and knock the same trouble, there are only information
about
> the Active-Pasive installation, and I'll wish a procedure or document
about
> Active-Active setup and installation.
>
> If someone knows where I can find the information, or somebody understand
> about Active-Active installation, please give it me know. Thanks a lot.
>
> Regards,
>
> Carlo Sorrel
>
|||first, sorry my english..., apears this error during instalattion the second instance on Cluster Windows 2003.
The description for Event ID ( 17052 ) in Source ( MSSQL$LASCAR ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. The following information is part of the event: [sqsrvres] checkODBCConnectError: sqlstate = 01000; native error = 35; message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionOpen (Connect()).
Tahnk's.
Carlo Sorrel.
"Uttam Parui[MS]" <uttamkp@.online.microsoft.com> escribi en el mensaje news:uX597q8AFHA.1680@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Hello Carlo,
> Once you have installed the first instance of virtual SQL Server 2000 then the steps for installing the second instance of virtual SQL Server 2000 is exactly the same. The second virtual instance of SQL Server 2000
> will need a seperate shared drive (you cannot use the shared drive that you used for the first instance), unique SQL IP Address (again you cannot use the one you used for your windows cluster ip or the first sql
> server ip) and unique SQL network name. Also, if the first virtual instance is a default instance then the second instance can ONLY be a named instance. You CANNOT have two default virtual SQL Server 2000
> instance on the same cluster. To have both the instances similar, many customers install both instances of virtual SQL Server 2000 as named instances.
> Since you have multiple instances (2 in your case), you will need to ensure that all server nodes have the same resources (processor, memory) and it is enough to handle the instances that could potentially fail to
> that node. Another important consideration is to cap memory usage of the instance of SQL Server 2000 with max server memory. Especially if AWE memory is enabled, max server memory must be set in a
> multiple-instance cluster to prevent starving the server node.
> If you have a Windows Server 2003 EE cluster then you may find the following webcast useful
> TechNet Support WebCast: How to install a Microsoft SQL Server 2000 virtual server on a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 cluster
> Discusses how to install Microsoft SQL Server 2000 clustering on Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and differences between Microsoft Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003.
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888121
>
> For Win2K Adv Server cluster, you may find the following whitepaper useful
> SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
> Review the above and feel free to post any other qs that you may have.
> Additional Information
> =======================
> Here is some other related links that you may find useful
> INF: Clustered SQL Server Do's, Don'ts, and Basic Warnings
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=254321
> 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
>
> HTH,
> 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 services overhead

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
>

Cluster quirum drive size

I need a sql failover cluster box with 10 instances, how big the quorum
drive size that I need --estimate
Thanks
Your Quorum drive does not need much space
minimum 500MB, 1GB will work fine
Rgds,
Edwin.
"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e$wj5JvaHHA.1240@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I need a sql failover cluster box with 10 instances, how big the quorum
> drive size that I need --estimate
> Thanks
>
|||Our quorum drives are sized to 640MB.
Linchi
"mecn" wrote:

> I need a sql failover cluster box with 10 instances, how big the quorum
> drive size that I need --estimate
> Thanks
>
>
sqlsql

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 confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.

> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:

> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.

Cluster confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:
> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.sqlsql

Cluster confusion, and instances?

Hey,
I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with
3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers each
being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
help would be appreciated.
At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
10.10.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
10.10.10.1\UAT
10.10.10.1\DEV
10.10.10.1\PROD
Any help is appreciated.> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) with">
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
Having PROD share a cluster with QA and DEV defeats the whole purpose of
having a cluster which is to provide high availability.

> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers ea
ch
> being a default instance?
You can use three named instances. You can't have three default instances in
the same cluster; you can have only one default instance in a cluster.
Linchi
"Daniel" wrote:

> Hey,
> I am trying to setup a clustered SQL 2000 environement (active-active) wit
h
> 3 instances UAT, DEV and PROD.
> Should i be using 3 named instances ? Or do I install 3 virtual servers ea
ch
> being a default instance? I know this is a newbie question but please some
> help would be appreciated.
> At the moment I would expect 3 virtual servers of SQL 2000 each with their
> own IP and NETBIOS name? ie.
> 10.10.10.1
> 10.10.10.2
> 10.10.10.3
> Or do i just create 3 named insstances?ie.
> 10.10.10.1\UAT
> 10.10.10.1\DEV
> 10.10.10.1\PROD
> Any help is appreciated.

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

Client must have root CA certificate?

The following get quoted from SQL book on-line.
"SSL encryption works only with instances of SQL Server 2000 running on a co
mputer that has been assigned a certificate from a public certification auth
ority. The computer on which the application is running must also have a roo
t CA certificate from the s
ame authority."
My question is that my client application run on different host from SQL ser
ver and don't have the SQL server root CA
certificated installed on client host. How my client can talk to the SQL ser
ver and packet is encryped?Install the CA's root certificate on the client.
Cheers
Ken
"Ming Cheng" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C11E32E7-54C3-446F-9697-4361C7605812@.microsoft.com...
: The following get quoted from SQL book on-line.
: "SSL encryption works only with instances of SQL Server 2000 running on a
computer that has been assigned a certificate from a public certification
authority. The computer on which the application is running must also have a
root CA certificate from the same authority."
:
: My question is that my client application run on different host from SQL
server and don't have the SQL server root CA
: certificated installed on client host. How my client can talk to the SQL
server and packet is encryped?
:
: