Cluster upgrade/migration issue advice.

Hey all,

We have a simple two-node x86 failover cluster attached to a SAN on which SQL Server 2005 runs. We recently bought two new x64 boxes to upgrade the cluster. My original plan was to just add the new nodes to the existing cluster and then remove the old nodes from the cluster, but I just found out that you can't mix architecture types in a cluster.

So far, it seems our choices are:

1) Install x86 Windows 2003 Server on the new nodes, losing performance.
2) Make a new cluster and migrate the data, possibly imposing downtime.

Anyone have any suggestions?You may be able to "swing" the LUNs from one cluster to the other, without much trouble. This depends on a number of factors, so you should contact your SAN vendor to see if it is feasible. If it is, then you build the 64-bit cluster, swing the LUNs over, attach all the DBs to the 64-bit instance of SQL Server, and then change all the applications that pointed to the old cluster. One caution, though, you should definitely take a real nice backup of all the databases, before you do the LUN switch, since you could potentially lose all of your databases to an inadvertent FORMAT command.|||Yeah, I think that's going to be the option we go with, since we can attach the new servers to the old LUNs, but that will involve some downtime.

I suppose we could replicate the dbs to a third server, update the important connections to point to the replicated server, do the move, point the connections to the new cluster.

Ugh.

Cluster solution certification

Hi All,
We are currently working on setting up a 2-Node cluster using SQL Server
2005.
Hardware :
HP Blade servers : BL 460c (c7000 enclosure)
SAN from Compellent Technologies
Fiber channel network.
OS : Windows Server 2003.
My understanding is that this cluster solution (as a whole not individual
components)needs to be certified by Microsoft in order to get support from
them in the future.
I checked the microsoft site www.windowsservercatalog.com but couldn;t find
the entire system as a whole for the above combination. There were other
combinations of SAN from Compellent and Proliant servers from HP.
I spoke to Compellent, and they directed me to the "wondowsservercatalog"
site.
I'm trying to get hold of someone from HP who can help me with this ,so far
no success.
Does anyone of you use the above platform for Clustering without any issues.
If so, for how long?
I appreciate your input.
SJ
Blade cluster = Low Availability Cluster, regardless of the certification.
Blades share too many critical components (Power Supplies, inbuilt network
switches, etc.) for me to count them as truly redundant solutions. Some
blade systems are less "interdependent" than others, but when you are trying
for both hardware redundancy (Clustering) AND lower cost through combined
hardware (blade platform), something has to give.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SJ" <SJ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C314632E-B342-45E7-86F8-CB0F8F1DD230@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> We are currently working on setting up a 2-Node cluster using SQL Server
> 2005.
> Hardware :
> HP Blade servers : BL 460c (c7000 enclosure)
> SAN from Compellent Technologies
> Fiber channel network.
> OS : Windows Server 2003.
> My understanding is that this cluster solution (as a whole not individual
> components)needs to be certified by Microsoft in order to get support from
> them in the future.
> I checked the microsoft site www.windowsservercatalog.com but couldn;t
> find
> the entire system as a whole for the above combination. There were other
> combinations of SAN from Compellent and Proliant servers from HP.
> I spoke to Compellent, and they directed me to the "wondowsservercatalog"
> site.
> I'm trying to get hold of someone from HP who can help me with this ,so
> far
> no success.
> Does anyone of you use the above platform for Clustering without any
> issues.
> If so, for how long?
> I appreciate your input.
>
> --
> SJ

Cluster Hardware recommendation

Hello,
I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of data.
It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage unit
(is this feasable?).
Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
Thanks - Jules.
Use the information found here -
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/cat...2-032dcb893c8b
Chuck Timon, Jr.
Microsoft Corporation
CCS Beta Engineer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||What sort of performance are you needing? If you need any kind of
performance considerations from this cluster, then I would not recommend the
AX100, and would recommend using a CX500 instead. Sure the CX500 costs
more, but you'll get more speed and reliability from it.
The AX100 is great for storage, and is a great backup to disk solution, but
for a SQL cluster, even though it could do it, would not do it well.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||If you consider the EMC Symmetrix DMX or HP Storage Solutions, the backup
snap-copy disks are installed within the same cabinet for local backups and
both support remote mirroring solutions. The Clariion does not.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
news:eHInBRd2FHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What sort of performance are you needing? If you need any kind of
> performance considerations from this cluster, then I would not recommend
the
> AX100, and would recommend using a CX500 instead. Sure the CX500 costs
> more, but you'll get more speed and reliability from it.
> The AX100 is great for storage, and is a great backup to disk solution,
but[vbcol=seagreen]
> for a SQL cluster, even though it could do it, would not do it well.
>
> Eric Bursley
> eric at bursley dot net
> Microsoft MVP
> RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
> GPG Signature:
> Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
>
> "Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL?).[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
storage[vbcol=seagreen]
and
>
|||I beg to differ. The Clariion support snapview which is a copy of first
write backup, and full cloning within the array. Very similar to the BCV's
that a Symmetrix has. In addition to that, the Clariion supports
mirrorview, sancopy, and mirrorview/A, which allows for replication between
multiple arrays. While a Symmetrix can do all of that an more, it will also
cost you a lot more as well.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%237qoZxi2FHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you consider the EMC Symmetrix DMX or HP Storage Solutions, the backup
> snap-copy disks are installed within the same cabinet for local backups
> and
> both support remote mirroring solutions. The Clariion does not.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
> news:eHInBRd2FHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> the
> but
> 2000)
> I
> SQL?).
> some
> to
> storage
> and
>
|||So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced or
stretch mirroring?
Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance, and
reduced latency, that your environment requires.
Anthony Thomas

"Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
news:eBCbguo2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I beg to differ. The Clariion support snapview which is a copy of first
> write backup, and full cloning within the array. Very similar to the
BCV's
> that a Symmetrix has. In addition to that, the Clariion supports
> mirrorview, sancopy, and mirrorview/A, which allows for replication
between
> multiple arrays. While a Symmetrix can do all of that an more, it will
also[vbcol=seagreen]
> cost you a lot more as well.
>
> Eric Bursley
> eric at bursley dot net
> Microsoft MVP
> RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
> GPG Signature:
> Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
>
>
> "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%237qoZxi2FHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
backup[vbcol=seagreen]
recommend[vbcol=seagreen]
web[vbcol=seagreen]
servers.[vbcol=seagreen]
growing[vbcol=seagreen]
of
>
|||Anthony Thomas wrote:
> So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
> If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced or
> stretch mirroring?
> Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
> would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
> other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance, and
> reduced latency, that your environment requires.
>
Clariion does support distance/stretched mirroring via Mirrorview.
MirrorView and MirrorView/A are similar to SRDF/S and SRDF/A
respectively. I don't believe Clariion has an Adaptive Copy equivilant,
but I'm not sure about that. As far as distance and latency, you
basically have the same set of obstacles to overcome with SRDF as you do
with MirrorView. Also, like the Symmetrix line, Clariions support
consistency groups.
Jon
|||With Sancopy / mirrorview / mirrorview/A, the Clariion is able to replicate
any distance the Symmetric can because the technology is control by FC-IP
routers, which transport FC over IP over any distance. I have assisted with
a Washington - Atlanta full sync mirror view connections, as well as New
York to LA. McData fibre channel IP routers handled the connections.
While the terms may be different, the technology is very similar. The only
real difference between the Symmetric and the Clariion is the Symmetric has
active / active FC ports, and the Clariion uses Active / Passive ports.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OzzYOQv2FHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
> If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced
> or
> stretch mirroring?
> Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
> would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
> other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance,
> and
> reduced latency, that your environment requires.
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
> news:eBCbguo2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> BCV's
> between
> also
> backup
> recommend
> web
> servers.
> growing
> of
>
|||If you really need to expand the SAN up to 10GB, then you should have to
select at least CX300 or CX300i. The reasons are:
1. AX100/i does not support cascading storage.
2. By cascading up to 4 x CX300, you can have up to around 19GB for storage
space.
3. You still need a growth buffer, right?
For iSCSI, I consider that will not be a bad choice unless you have to
consider the performance difference between Gigabit Ethernet and 2GB FC.
However, in terms of unifying your network equipment to pure IP based, it
may be a good choice.
To choose between CX300/500, the only factor I consider is the total storage
size, since that the performance factor does not generate noticible
difference to me.
Considering iSCSI, I have implemented iSCSI-SQL server cluster solution for
testing and for customer production environment for few time already and
found no particular problem. The art is the OS and SQL level fine tuning,
instead of iSCSI. iSCSI itself, even using Microsoft iSCSI initiator, is a
very stable as I experienced.
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||Going from the EMC AX series to the CX series is a big price jump. Try this
Cluster Solution built on iSCSI.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/cat...Han d&scope=1
Unless you have an unlimted IT budget
"Jules" wrote:

> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of data.
> It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage unit
> (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
>

Cluster / SQL 2005 / SAN storage

Hi...I got some basic questions in regards to setup a lab environment
with two nodes cluster over Windows ent 2003, ent SQL 2005 and SAN
storage.
1) Would the following hardware be enough: SAN storage, fiber channel
switch, two intel servers, 4 HBA (2 for each servers) ?
2) what is the difference betwen fiber channel switch and fiber
channel routing?
3) what is different between fiber channel and iSCSI?
4) what is the zoning?
5) what is the steps to install the cluster windows server?
6) what is the steps to configure the SQL2005? do I need to install
SQL twice in each node, or I just need to install once in the vitual
server?
7) what is the draft diagram?
8) what is the private network, public network for SAN?
Thanks,
Yve

> 1) Would the following hardware be enough: SAN storage, fiber channel
> switch, two intel servers, 4 HBA (2 for each servers) ?
Best practice would be to have two FC switches to create two fabrics for
redundancy. Also as you mention 2 HBA's per node, you probably want "Multi
path software", contact your storage vendor to get more information.

> 2) what is the difference betwen fiber channel switch and fiber
> channel routing?
Switching is done within a fabric. In VERY large installations, routing
might be needed to "route" between various fabrics, most installations, even
with multiple fabrics, you would find switches only. If you only build a
cluster in a lab, you would not need routing.

> 3) what is different between fiber channel and iSCSI?
iSCSI runs over IP protocol, iSCSI is deemed to be more cost efficient,
however when building a SAN there are many questions on cost, speed,
performance, interoperability and reliability (.. .and so on).

> 4) what is the zoning?
In a Fibre Channel Fabric, Zoning determines which HBA can talk to which
port on the Storage.
(e.g. HBA-1 from Server-2 can communicate to Port-X on Storage-A) this
allows multiple Servers and multiple Storage units to be connected to a
Fabric, without "conflicting" traffic on your SAN)

> 5) what is the steps to install the cluster windows server?
Have a read of this first:
- http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/genclust.mspx
A good collection of cluster related articles can be found here:
- http://www.nw-america.com/

> 6) what is the steps to configure the SQL2005? do I need to install
> SQL twice in each node, or I just need to install once in the vitual
> server?
Have a read about this in the online books

> 7) what is the draft diagram?
I leave this to SQL guys to answer

> 8) what is the private network, public network for SAN?
- private network is the IP network between the Cluster Nodes for cluster
(only) communications
- public network is the IP network both nodes are connected to, and which
will be used for users to connect to your clustered SQL databases
- private/public networks have nothing to do with SAN, SAN is the network
(FC or iSCSI) which connects your nodes to the shared storage.

> Thanks,
> Yve
>
Hope this helps,
Rgds,
Edwin.