Clearing LOG Files: servers

Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Cluster testing

I need to setup a 2 node cluster for testing.
I have 2 identical servers running Win2k3, but I have a question about the
shared disk device.
For the shared disk can I use a NAS device, one that connects thru a cat5,
or do I need a device that uses scsi?
Remember this is for a short term test.
Thanks
SQL Clustering won't support NAS. SCSI would work, but why not try Virtual
Server 2005? That works great!
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"dutch" <dutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CCAEA46-6F5F-44D6-86A1-5BBAD07F8B18@.microsoft.com...
>I need to setup a 2 node cluster for testing.
> I have 2 identical servers running Win2k3, but I have a question about the
> shared disk device.
> For the shared disk can I use a NAS device, one that connects thru a cat5,
> or do I need a device that uses scsi?
> Remember this is for a short term test.
> Thanks
sql sql

Cluster synchronize

I have an architecture which has 4 DB servers on the whole; two will
participate in load balancing and other two in fail over clustering.
My question is how will the two DB servers that is used for load
balancing synchronize?
Hi
To synchronize the data between the 2 clusters, you need to use something
like replication. Clustering is not a load-balancing technology.
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/
<mukesh.thiru@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135764099.960391.227140@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I have an architecture which has 4 DB servers on the whole; two will
> participate in load balancing and other two in fail over clustering.
> My question is how will the two DB servers that is used for load
> balancing synchronize?
>
|||Clustering is also not compatible with Windows Load Balancing, so you would
need to use a hardware based load balancer.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eQ%23n4Y6CGHA.620@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> To synchronize the data between the 2 clusters, you need to use something
> like replication. Clustering is not a load-balancing technology.
> 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/
> <mukesh.thiru@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135764099.960391.227140@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||mukesh.thiru@.gmail.com wrote:
> I have an architecture which has 4 DB servers on the whole; two will
> participate in load balancing and other two in fail over clustering.
> My question is how will the two DB servers that is used for load
> balancing synchronize?
If you are using SQL server 2005, you might want to consider using read
only shared databases for your reporting . Using a shared file system,
all the nodes can see the same database files which are read only, and
mount the database as read only. You could run reporting quaries
against up to 16 nodes archiving close to 16X speedup.
If your update cycle and reporting cycle do not overlap, switching
between the read write to read only (and back) takes about 20 seconds.
Note that no replication is needed and no storage space is wasted.
Tomer Meshorer
Database Engineer
Polyserve Inc (http://www.polyserve.com)
Email:tmeshorer@.polyserve.com
|||I'd very strongly disagree with that assessment. It isn't a shared file
system, it requires a SAN.
Additionally, just because you point 2 SQL Server instances at the same
database does not mean you get 2X performance improvement, just like
pointing 16 instances at a single database will not give you 16X
performance. You could in fact see your performance degrade. The only way
that your performance would improve is if you have queries running on each
instance that are not competing with each other for disk throughput. If
there is disk contention, your performance will degrade since a single set
of disks are now servicing requests from multiple instances at the same
time.
Read only, shared databases is a nice new feature, but any performance
benefit you may get is very highly dependent upon your query patterns, the
volume of data in your active working set, and the amount of physical data
you can cache in memory on each instance.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"tmeshorer" <tmeshorer@.polyserve.com> wrote in message
news:1135935720.275938.306680@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> mukesh.thiru@.gmail.com wrote:
> If you are using SQL server 2005, you might want to consider using read
> only shared databases for your reporting . Using a shared file system,
> all the nodes can see the same database files which are read only, and
> mount the database as read only. You could run reporting quaries
> against up to 16 nodes archiving close to 16X speedup.
> If your update cycle and reporting cycle do not overlap, switching
> between the read write to read only (and back) takes about 20 seconds.
> Note that no replication is needed and no storage space is wasted.
>
> Tomer Meshorer
> Database Engineer
> Polyserve Inc (http://www.polyserve.com)
> Email:tmeshorer@.polyserve.com
>
|||Your scenario is correct on a specific context. Vis you have an I/O
bottleneck
However, this is customer specific.
In cases where you have a CPU bottleneck (usually occurs in DW type of
quaries,which tends to do sequential I/O) the suggested solution will
scale close to linear(at least as observed in internal benchmarks where
I/O was not a bottleneck)
What I am suggesting, and specifically in the context of reporting, is
an alternative way for scaling SQL server.
Currently the only way to scale is up, which become very costly when
you go to the 8,16,32 CPU boxes.
In addition, you cannot scale economically since you move in increments
of 2^n each time you want to decrease your reporting time (and move
exponentially in price)
Note that in both scenarios (scale up to big SMP, or scale out on a
shared file system cluster) if you have an I/O bottleneck you reach the
state as described in your email.
However scaling out is more economically sound (assuming that you do
not have I/O bottle neck) since:
1. It is much cheaper
2. Pay as you go
3. No storage duplication
4. No changes to the database configuration(I.e. no need for
replication).
Best,
Tomer Meshorer
Database Engineer
Polyserve Inc
|||My only point was that you stated that you would get a 16X performance
improvement by using this when you deploy on 16 machines. That statement is
100% false and we both know it. You get ZERO performance improvement. Not
a single, solitary second of improved performance. A query running on the
operational system and taking 10 seconds is going to take 10 seconds to
complete if you are using a scalable shared database model.
Do not mix improved performance with the ability to execute more read only
queries per unit time. It is NOT the same thing and is an incredibly
misleading statement. It is misleading statements like that which lead to
people implementing things and then saying that "SQL Server can't scale" or
"SQL Server can't perform", because they are trying to make a feature do
something that it was not designed to do and never had the possibility of
doing in the first place.
You CAN be increased throughput and you CAN get increased capacity by being
able to run many more of these 10 second queries simultaneously when they
are executed against multiple machines. The ONLY time that you get
increased throughput (more queries per second) or increased capacity (more
queries per second) is if you hae a VERY specific situation where memory or
CPU is the ONLY bottleneck. In those situations, you can get increased
throughput or capacity, BUT, you do NOT and never will get a linear
increase in query capacity. The amount of increased capacity is VERY highly
dependent upon your database design, the volume of data you are working
with, and query patterns.
You cited DW type of queries. There is no such thing. You either have
queries that perform sequential I/O or queries performing random I/O.
Giving it a fancy name doesn't change it, because you run both types of
queries in every operational system. So, let's look at a CPU contrained
query. We have system where we have 4 processors and 4 GB of RAM. Queries
executing against the 400GB of data within the database normally take 15
minutes to execute and pull as much as 3 GB of data. We have isolated the
issue to CPU bottlenecks and moved the system to an 8 processor machine,
thereby doubling the CPU capacity. We observed that the execution time of
this query drops to 11 minutes whereby, we found that memory became the
bottleneck in the system. We doubled the RAM to 8GB and found that the
query execution only dropped to 10 minutes. Both memory and CPU became
bottlenecks at that point, because we were all of a sudden executing more
queries per unit time and 3 simultaneously executing queries would saturate
our memory. This would cause pages to be ejected from the cache (incurring
additional processor overhead). More pages would have to be read from disk
(more processor overhead). We quickly found out that it if we increased the
processor or memory capacity, we would then shift the bottleneck to the I/O
subsystem.
Sure, you can craft testing matrices and benchmarks that will say that
scalable, shared databases will get you a nearly linear scaling. (VERY
important to note that the word is SCALING, NOT performance improvement.)
For every scenario that you come up which exhibits this behavior, I can
change it a hundred different ways to cause the performance to degrade
either by changing the query pattern, introducing a new query, changing the
indexing, increasing the data volume, changing query parameters, etc.
It is a nice technology that has a VERY specific use in an environment
experiencing VERY specific scalability issues. Unless you have done a full
analysis on the system to determine whether it is appropriate, implementing
this technology would be a very big mistake. It most definitely isn't going
to produce a linear scaling and there is a reason that Microsoft is not
giving any specific numbers. (The instant they publish numbers like you
have, there are going to be several thousand people handing evidence that
the findings are not correct.)
This very specific issue is what makes all of the Oracle marketing and sales
surrounding RAC a complete joke. Oracle RAC won't produce a linear scaling
for exactly the same reasons that Scalable Shared Databases won't produce a
linear scaling. If your query pattern, active data volumes, and bottlenecks
meet a VERY specific profile then these types of technologies will get you
increased SCALABILITY. (That does NOT mean you get improved performance.)
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"tmeshorer" <tmeshorer@.polyserve.com> wrote in message
news:1136012125.047011.237960@.g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Your scenario is correct on a specific context. Vis you have an I/O
> bottleneck
> However, this is customer specific.
> In cases where you have a CPU bottleneck (usually occurs in DW type of
> quaries,which tends to do sequential I/O) the suggested solution will
> scale close to linear(at least as observed in internal benchmarks where
> I/O was not a bottleneck)
> What I am suggesting, and specifically in the context of reporting, is
> an alternative way for scaling SQL server.
> Currently the only way to scale is up, which become very costly when
> you go to the 8,16,32 CPU boxes.
> In addition, you cannot scale economically since you move in increments
> of 2^n each time you want to decrease your reporting time (and move
> exponentially in price)
> Note that in both scenarios (scale up to big SMP, or scale out on a
> shared file system cluster) if you have an I/O bottleneck you reach the
> state as described in your email.
> However scaling out is more economically sound (assuming that you do
> not have I/O bottle neck) since:
> 1. It is much cheaper
> 2. Pay as you go
> 3. No storage duplication
> 4. No changes to the database configuration(I.e. no need for
> replication).
> Best,
> Tomer Meshorer
> Database Engineer
> Polyserve Inc
>
|||I should have clarified my point. I am looking at the actual wall clock
time that it takes to run a reporting job. I also assume that you have
more queries than servers, which I think would be the case for a
typical reporting job.
So from a wall clock time perspective, you will be able to get close to
X#server execution time improvement. I.e. if you are CPU constrained, a
6 hour job with 6 queries on one server can be reduced to 1 hour job on
6 servers.
If you have an I/O bottleneck there are two cases. If you are storage
constrained that this is a natural case. Vis, it does not matter if you
have 4*2 way servers or one 8 way server. If you are internal I/O BUS
constrains (e.g. PCI Express) moving to 4*2 way might improve your
situation since now you have 4 internal buses in your disposal.
However, I do not agree with your other point that this is very
specific situation. I think that you will encounter this situation at
the same probability that you will encounter any other kind of
bottleneck (which is about 1/3 of the cases). However, as your example
describe, to move out of the "CPU as a bottleneck" state into "I/O as
bottleneck state" you have to scale up. Based on your example, your
customer had to scale up from 4 way to 8 way.
Now lets say that you paid the money and now you are I/O constrained.
Ok, you buy more disks, change your RAID method, etc. Time passes and
you are again constrained by the CPU... are you going to move to 16
way?, 32 way? 64 way ?
My point is that if you do not have CPU bottleneck now, you will be
after you solve your current bottleneck. I.e. this is not VERY specific
scenario but rather a common one.
Tomer Meshorer
Database Engineer
Polyserve Inc (www.polyserve.com)
|||So that means that I can put 9 women to work and produce a baby in 1 month?
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"tmeshorer" <tmeshorer@.polyserve.com> wrote in message
news:1136319106.372823.46070@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>I should have clarified my point. I am looking at the actual wall clock
> time that it takes to run a reporting job. I also assume that you have
> more queries than servers, which I think would be the case for a
> typical reporting job.
> So from a wall clock time perspective, you will be able to get close to
> X#server execution time improvement. I.e. if you are CPU constrained, a
> 6 hour job with 6 queries on one server can be reduced to 1 hour job on
> 6 servers.
> If you have an I/O bottleneck there are two cases. If you are storage
> constrained that this is a natural case. Vis, it does not matter if you
> have 4*2 way servers or one 8 way server. If you are internal I/O BUS
> constrains (e.g. PCI Express) moving to 4*2 way might improve your
> situation since now you have 4 internal buses in your disposal.
> However, I do not agree with your other point that this is very
> specific situation. I think that you will encounter this situation at
> the same probability that you will encounter any other kind of
> bottleneck (which is about 1/3 of the cases). However, as your example
> describe, to move out of the "CPU as a bottleneck" state into "I/O as
> bottleneck state" you have to scale up. Based on your example, your
> customer had to scale up from 4 way to 8 way.
> Now lets say that you paid the money and now you are I/O constrained.
> Ok, you buy more disks, change your RAID method, etc. Time passes and
> you are again constrained by the CPU... are you going to move to 16
> way?, 32 way? 64 way ?
> My point is that if you do not have CPU bottleneck now, you will be
> after you solve your current bottleneck. I.e. this is not VERY specific
> scenario but rather a common one.
> Tomer Meshorer
> Database Engineer
> Polyserve Inc (www.polyserve.com)
>
|||No. What I suggest is "Concurrent " execution, I.e. wall time speed up.
However, I cannot formulate and answer using babies and women while
staying
politically correct :-)
Tomer Meshorer
Database Engineer
Polyserve Inc (www.polyserve.com)

Cluster SQL 2000 errorlog problem

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Cluster SQL 2000 errorlog problem

We've recently installed a couple of Windows Server 2003 Ent Ed servers with
SQL 2000 Ent Ed and one of the active/active nodes continually gives the
error below in the Application Event log.
The NT user which was used to install the server and owns the directories
and files below has full rights so this should not be an issue.
I've checked MSDN, etc. but nothing which seems to help.
Thanks.
Ron
--
17050 :
initerrlog: Could not open error log file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'. Operating system error = 3(The system cannot find
the path specified.).
--Ron,
Is drive D local to the server or on the cluster's shared drives? The error
message could be implying that the node in question was installed with the
data files on a local drive.
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7BABBA49-964A-4422-ACB8-B559661A5F05@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently installed a couple of Windows Server 2003 Ent Ed servers
with
> SQL 2000 Ent Ed and one of the active/active nodes continually gives the
> error below in the Application Event log.
> The NT user which was used to install the server and owns the directories
> and files below has full rights so this should not be an issue.
> I've checked MSDN, etc. but nothing which seems to help.
> Thanks.
> Ron
> --
> 17050 :
> initerrlog: Could not open error log file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
> Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'. Operating system error = 3(The system cannot
find
> the path specified.).
> --|||BTW, there's a webcast on troubleshooting a SQL Server 2000 cluster install
that contains a lot of detail not available elsewhere:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/servicedesks/webcasts/wcd020703/wcdblurb020703.asp
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Ron Talmage" <rtalmage@.prospice.com> wrote in message
news:%23c46wJI%23EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Ron,
> Is drive D local to the server or on the cluster's shared drives? The
error
> message could be implying that the node in question was installed with the
> data files on a local drive.
> Hope this helps,
> Ron
> --
> Ron Talmage
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7BABBA49-964A-4422-ACB8-B559661A5F05@.microsoft.com...
> > We've recently installed a couple of Windows Server 2003 Ent Ed servers
> with
> > SQL 2000 Ent Ed and one of the active/active nodes continually gives the
> > error below in the Application Event log.
> >
> > The NT user which was used to install the server and owns the
directories
> > and files below has full rights so this should not be an issue.
> >
> > I've checked MSDN, etc. but nothing which seems to help.
> > Thanks.
> > Ron
> >
> > --
> > 17050 :
> > initerrlog: Could not open error log file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft
SQL
> > Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'. Operating system error = 3(The system cannot
> find
> > the path specified.).
> >
> > --
>|||Ron,
I'll review the webcast...thanks!
SQL Server is installed on the C: drive, the data files are installed on D:
which is a SAN drive share.
I've rebooted both nodes and only started node1...with node2 offline, there
errors are not appearing in the event logs...? Seems odd as it's node1 which
is logging the errors...any other ideas?
Thanks.
Ron
"Ron Talmage" wrote:
> BTW, there's a webcast on troubleshooting a SQL Server 2000 cluster install
> that contains a lot of detail not available elsewhere:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/servicedesks/webcasts/wcd020703/wcdblurb020703.asp
> Ron
> --
> Ron Talmage
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ron Talmage" <rtalmage@.prospice.com> wrote in message
> news:%23c46wJI%23EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Ron,
> >
> > Is drive D local to the server or on the cluster's shared drives? The
> error
> > message could be implying that the node in question was installed with the
> > data files on a local drive.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Ron
> > --
> > Ron Talmage
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> > "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:7BABBA49-964A-4422-ACB8-B559661A5F05@.microsoft.com...
> > > We've recently installed a couple of Windows Server 2003 Ent Ed servers
> > with
> > > SQL 2000 Ent Ed and one of the active/active nodes continually gives the
> > > error below in the Application Event log.
> > >
> > > The NT user which was used to install the server and owns the
> directories
> > > and files below has full rights so this should not be an issue.
> > >
> > > I've checked MSDN, etc. but nothing which seems to help.
> > > Thanks.
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > --
> > > 17050 :
> > > initerrlog: Could not open error log file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft
> SQL
> > > Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'. Operating system error = 3(The system cannot
> > find
> > > the path specified.).
> > >
> > > --
> >
> >
>
>sql sql

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 shutdown

I have a Compaq DL380 G2 package cluster.
Prior to the Hurricane (scare) for the Houston area, all servers and the
cluster were shutdown/powered down.
I am looking for the proper shutdown/powerup procedure for the cluster.
We had a hard time getting the cluster to be recognized by the server.
Make sure your Domain Controllers and network switches are up and running
before powering up the cluster. The disk array starts first, then one host
node. Take all resource roups except the quorum group offline after the
first node is up. Bring up the second node only after the first node is
operational . Make sure the disk resources and IP addresses shift
correctly, then bring the resource groups online on the corret hosts.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Harold Clemons" <harold@.hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:OqVZe.32210$S26.11108@.tornado.texas.rr.com...
>I have a Compaq DL380 G2 package cluster.
> Prior to the Hurricane (scare) for the Houston area, all servers and the
> cluster were shutdown/powered down.
> I am looking for the proper shutdown/powerup procedure for the cluster.
> We had a hard time getting the cluster to be recognized by the server.
>

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
Thanks
Hi
"a" wrote:

> Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
> Thanks
>
I would not expect it, but good practices would have them syncronised. Have
you looked at perfmon counters?
John
|||No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload app
that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run insert
400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server which has
4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to the SAN. HQ
keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something wrong with the
code. That is just one of the few hints I have received, the other is that
although the application is not using transactions, there is a long running
transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog which indicates to me a
possible disk bottleneck.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:556D6AD2-31AA-433F-A5BA-EE1A1AB6B05C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> "a" wrote:
> I would not expect it, but good practices would have them syncronised.
> Have
> you looked at perfmon counters?
> John
|||I often see developers do stuff on their 'local box' that kill a production
box. Indexes (or not), number of rows in production 5 orders of magnitude
more than local box has, 2000 concurrent users on prod box, ONE on local
box, etc. etc.
If you cannot check perf mon counters on the prod box, or at least get
sp_who run while the load is happening to check for blocking, you will never
know the actual cause of the slowness.
My guess is resource blocking by other users, or a huge number of rows in
production that you didn't mimic on your test box. There could also be
something like audit triggers on production that you don't have either. The
list goes on and on.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<a> wrote in message news:%23ml9MjVdHHA.4888@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload
> app that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run
> insert 400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server
> which has 4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to
> the SAN. HQ keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something
> wrong with the code. That is just one of the few hints I have received,
> the other is that although the application is not using transactions,
> there is a long running transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog
> which indicates to me a possible disk bottleneck.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:556D6AD2-31AA-433F-A5BA-EE1A1AB6B05C@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Hi
"a" wrote:

> No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload app
> that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run insert
> 400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server which has
> 4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to the SAN. HQ
> keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something wrong with the
> code. That is just one of the few hints I have received, the other is that
> although the application is not using transactions, there is a long running
> transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog which indicates to me a
> possible disk bottleneck.
>
You can use perfmon and DBCC SQLPERF ( WAITSTATS ) in SQL 2000 or
dm_os_wait_stats in SQL 2005 to determine how well the I/O subsystem is
working. A mis-configured SAN can give poor performance, copying a large file
onto the SAN may indicate this is an issue if it takes an abnormally long
time. You could also use the utilities SQLIO or SQLIOSIM to check performance.
You should also check for blocking when running your process.
Check the CPU and Memory usage, the server may not have been configured to
allow processes other than SQL Server to consume large amounts of resources.
Make sure that you know what is normal for your system as well as what
happens when you run your process. It could be that the system had issues
already and your application has exacerbated them.
HTH
John

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
ThanksHi
"a" wrote:
> Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
> Thanks
>
I would not expect it, but good practices would have them syncronised. Have
you looked at perfmon counters?
John|||No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload app
that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run insert
400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server which has
4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to the SAN. HQ
keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something wrong with the
code. That is just one of the few hints I have received, the other is that
although the application is not using transactions, there is a long running
transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog which indicates to me a
possible disk bottleneck.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:556D6AD2-31AA-433F-A5BA-EE1A1AB6B05C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> "a" wrote:
>> Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
>> Thanks
> I would not expect it, but good practices would have them syncronised.
> Have
> you looked at perfmon counters?
> John|||I often see developers do stuff on their 'local box' that kill a production
box. Indexes (or not), number of rows in production 5 orders of magnitude
more than local box has, 2000 concurrent users on prod box, ONE on local
box, etc. etc.
If you cannot check perf mon counters on the prod box, or at least get
sp_who run while the load is happening to check for blocking, you will never
know the actual cause of the slowness.
My guess is resource blocking by other users, or a huge number of rows in
production that you didn't mimic on your test box. There could also be
something like audit triggers on production that you don't have either. The
list goes on and on.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
<a> wrote in message news:%23ml9MjVdHHA.4888@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload
> app that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run
> insert 400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server
> which has 4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to
> the SAN. HQ keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something
> wrong with the code. That is just one of the few hints I have received,
> the other is that although the application is not using transactions,
> there is a long running transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog
> which indicates to me a possible disk bottleneck.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:556D6AD2-31AA-433F-A5BA-EE1A1AB6B05C@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi
>> "a" wrote:
>> Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?
>> Thanks
>> I would not expect it, but good practices would have them syncronised.
>> Have
>> you looked at perfmon counters?
>> John
>|||Hi
"a" wrote:
> No, I do not have access to this particular server. I have an dataload app
> that runs in 6 minutes on a lil ol' PC but it takes 45 minutes to run insert
> 400,000 records into a db after deploying to the Production Server which has
> 4 quad processors with 32 GB of RAB and a fiber connection to the SAN. HQ
> keeps telling me it's not a hardware issue, it's something wrong with the
> code. That is just one of the few hints I have received, the other is that
> although the application is not using transactions, there is a long running
> transaction that has a lastwaittype of writelog which indicates to me a
> possible disk bottleneck.
>
You can use perfmon and DBCC SQLPERF ( WAITSTATS ) in SQL 2000 or
dm_os_wait_stats in SQL 2005 to determine how well the I/O subsystem is
working. A mis-configured SAN can give poor performance, copying a large file
onto the SAN may indicate this is an issue if it takes an abnormally long
time. You could also use the utilities SQLIO or SQLIOSIM to check performance.
You should also check for blocking when running your process.
Check the CPU and Memory usage, the server may not have been configured to
allow processes other than SQL Server to consume large amounts of resources.
Make sure that you know what is normal for your system as well as what
happens when you run your process. It could be that the system had issues
already and your application has exacerbated them.
HTH
John

Cluster question

Our company are looking at purchasing 2 new servers. One will hold the databases the other will be purely an application server which amongst other things will access the database. If we cluster the two servers and setup sql server active/passive clusteri
ng can we continue to use 2nd node as application server but as failover for sql server?
Yes it is possible, but you would have to have enough resources to run all
the applications. BTW, I think you don't quite understand the
term-active-active. That refers to a specific SQL 7.0 technology that
allowed each nost node to run a separate instance. SQL 2000 either has
single-instance or multi-instance clustering with the host nodes as complete
peers.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"bert" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C41330A-E708-40F3-B957-5AF11CC5B984@.microsoft.com...
> Our company are looking at purchasing 2 new servers. One will hold the
databases the other will be purely an application server which amongst other
things will access the database. If we cluster the two servers and setup sql
server active/passive clustering can we continue to use 2nd node as
application server but as failover for sql server?

Cluster question

My employer is asking to do an Active / Active SQL 2000 cluster to utilize
both servers. Problem is, I don't think SQL 2000 supports an Active/Active
solution because both would need access to the disk which isn't possible...
The only time an Active / Active cluster can work is when you have multiple
instances which allows Node A to use the disk for one instance and Node B to
utilize the disk for a different named instance.
Can someone clarify for me? Thanks.
Each instance of SQL Server will require its own disk resources. Thus, if
SQL1 owns E: then SQL2 cannot have an E: drive. SQL 2000 supports up to 16
instances within the same cluster. We don't use the term Active/Active any
more.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C926C991-9D66-4531-A5FF-912AEC097165@.microsoft.com...
My employer is asking to do an Active / Active SQL 2000 cluster to utilize
both servers. Problem is, I don't think SQL 2000 supports an Active/Active
solution because both would need access to the disk which isn't possible...
The only time an Active / Active cluster can work is when you have multiple
instances which allows Node A to use the disk for one instance and Node B to
utilize the disk for a different named instance.
Can someone clarify for me? Thanks.
|||"when you have multiple instances which allows Node A to use the disk for
one instance and Node B to utilize the disk for a different named instance."
--> correct
what you might want to look into is :
scalable shared databases, where multiple SQL 2005 (enterprise)
servers are accessing a read-only volume.
there are many restrictions to this
Please see ; http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;910378
for more info on this
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C926C991-9D66-4531-A5FF-912AEC097165@.microsoft.com...
> My employer is asking to do an Active / Active SQL 2000 cluster to utilize
> both servers. Problem is, I don't think SQL 2000 supports an
Active/Active
> solution because both would need access to the disk which isn't
possible...
> The only time an Active / Active cluster can work is when you have
multiple
> instances which allows Node A to use the disk for one instance and Node B
to
> utilize the disk for a different named instance.
> Can someone clarify for me? Thanks.
> --
|||Each instance requires it own dedicated disk resources that cannot be
shared, and databases CANNOT be shared between instances. Those dedicated
resources cannot have the same drive assignment.
Instance A has SAN drive G, H,
Instance B has SAN drives M, N
Upon failover of Instance A, Physical computer B now runs both Instance B
AND Instance A, and Drives G, H, M, N.
This has been a very simplistic example, but hopefully you now understand a
bit better.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C926C991-9D66-4531-A5FF-912AEC097165@.microsoft.com...
> My employer is asking to do an Active / Active SQL 2000 cluster to utilize
> both servers. Problem is, I don't think SQL 2000 supports an
> Active/Active
> solution because both would need access to the disk which isn't
> possible...
> The only time an Active / Active cluster can work is when you have
> multiple
> instances which allows Node A to use the disk for one instance and Node B
> to
> utilize the disk for a different named instance.
> Can someone clarify for me? Thanks.
> --
|||Roland, very clear, thank you.
Now, slightly off but still for clustering, how do I administer the
traditional sp_configure settings? I'm speaking of memory for myself but
that raised the larger question, How do I administer the server? I'd assume
through the virtual server name since on the back end the Master and MSDB are
really being written to by the Active node... Am I correct? If I want to
give the server more or less memory, can I do so through the Enterprise
manager interface?
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:

> Each instance requires it own dedicated disk resources that cannot be
> shared, and databases CANNOT be shared between instances. Those dedicated
> resources cannot have the same drive assignment.
> Instance A has SAN drive G, H,
> Instance B has SAN drives M, N
> Upon failover of Instance A, Physical computer B now runs both Instance B
> AND Instance A, and Drives G, H, M, N.
> This has been a very simplistic example, but hopefully you now understand a
> bit better.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
> You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
> top yourself.
> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>
> "burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:C926C991-9D66-4531-A5FF-912AEC097165@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Each server in the cluster is still an independent server; configuration is
done the same way as a stand alone server. However, you need to configure
with the understanding that both instances MAY have to operate on the same
box.
So if the box has 8 GB of memory, then you don't assign all 8 GBs to the
default instance on that box. If you did, when there is a failover, there
will be no memory for the 'visiting' instance.
If InstanceA has a minimum memory of 4 GB, and Instance B also has a minimum
memory allocation of 4 GB, and the server only has 8 GB, then upon failover,
the 'visiting' instance will be memory starved and will most like not come
online. (You have to make sure that there is enough memory for the OS as
well.)
Let's say both boxes have 8 GB. InstanceA contains large, heavily used
databases, so it is allocated 5 GB as a maximum, and InstanceB is less
demanding, so it is allocated 2 GB as a maximum. Upon failover, the two
instances require 7 GB, and leave 1 GB for the OS and memory management.
'Bean counters' will complain since it appears that InstanceB only needs 3
GB for the server, and adding an addition 5 GB is seen as a waste. However,
you have to consider the cost of the 'unused' 5 GB on InstanceB as insurance
payments for future availability. (And the same for the 'unused' 2 GB on
InstanceA.)
Thing to remember with configuration, is that upon failover, all instances
must be able to work (albeit perhaps not performing quite as well) on one
box. Most Server wide configuration settings 'should' be the same. Memory is
the most common setting that is different between Instances.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91DFAA5E-B271-4CA4-B6FE-727CA857BC39@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Roland, very clear, thank you.
> Now, slightly off but still for clustering, how do I administer the
> traditional sp_configure settings? I'm speaking of memory for myself but
> that raised the larger question, How do I administer the server? I'd
> assume
> through the virtual server name since on the back end the Master and MSDB
> are
> really being written to by the Active node... Am I correct? If I want to
> give the server more or less memory, can I do so through the Enterprise
> manager interface?
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Cluster not visible to external IP

Hello
We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have one
named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN connections
can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable). Permissions not
an issue.
Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
ThanksVPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not the
virtual server IPs.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
> Permissions not an issue.
> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
> Thanks
>|||We are using the cluster name rather than IP. Will try the actual node name
now, but the only thing then is there is no failover protection.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:OkktM047FHA.3224@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> VPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not
> the virtual server IPs.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
>> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
>> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
>> Permissions not an issue.
>> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
>> Thanks
>|||When a client (in this case the firewall) receives an IP packet from a
virtual instance, the sender IP address is the node's physical address, not
the virtual address. You can still connect via virtual IP for name and ARP
resolution, but you will have to enable VPN access via the physical node
addresses.
GNH
"PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eUtFO347FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> We are using the cluster name rather than IP. Will try the actual node
> name now, but the only thing then is there is no failover protection.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:OkktM047FHA.3224@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> VPN connections will have to be enabled to the underlying node IPs, not
>> the virtual server IPs.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>> "PB" <hoopitup@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OdM$Zy47FHA.1148@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have SQL 2000 with two servers clustered (one is a failover) to have
>> one named SQL server. This is fine internally, but external VPN
>> connections can't reach this server (all other machines are reachable).
>> Permissions not an issue.
>> Anyone have any ideas on where to start/look?
>> Thanks
>>
>sql sql

Cluster not visible to external IP

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 Issue

Hello,
I have a Wndows 2003 Sql 2005 Cluster consisting of two servers, on Failover
from node2 to node1 the application user is unable to login until the sql
server is restarted, on failover all the resourses come online but the user
is unable to access the database and if I look in SQl Server management
studio I am unable to see the properties of the DB, if I initiate a failure
of SQL server in the cluster I am still unable to access the DB but if I
restart SQL server in management studio the database comes online.
Also when I do a failover to node2, it shows all resourses are online but
the application cannot access the DB like it is not there, but I can access
the Quorum and the shared DB drive.
Thanks in advance,
Bob Smith
Definitely a problem. Check the Application log on either node (Event
logging on a cluster is cluster-wide to each node) to see if SQL is
complaining about starting up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob Smith" <BobSmith@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F586AE13-D88E-4893-A6A3-0465392C13F2@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Wndows 2003 Sql 2005 Cluster consisting of two servers, on
> Failover
> from node2 to node1 the application user is unable to login until the sql
> server is restarted, on failover all the resourses come online but the
> user
> is unable to access the database and if I look in SQl Server management
> studio I am unable to see the properties of the DB, if I initiate a
> failure
> of SQL server in the cluster I am still unable to access the DB but if I
> restart SQL server in management studio the database comes online.
> Also when I do a failover to node2, it shows all resourses are online but
> the application cannot access the DB like it is not there, but I can
> access
> the Quorum and the shared DB drive.
> Thanks in advance,
> Bob Smith
|||Hi Geoff,
Thanks for the reply, the only thing I can see is logwriter errors, which I
googled and found more questions than answers, let me ask this: Can the
Quroum and the physical disk be in different groups or should the be in the
same, mine is set the the Quorum is in the Cluster group and the Physical
disk is in group 0. By the way I see these errors on both nodes. What is best
practice for the cluster group, what resourses should exist in it: Cluster
IP, Cluster Name, MSDTC -?, Quorum -?
Thanks again,
Bob Smith
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Definitely a problem. Check the Application log on either node (Event
> logging on a cluster is cluster-wide to each node) to see if SQL is
> complaining about starting up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Bob Smith" <BobSmith@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F586AE13-D88E-4893-A6A3-0465392C13F2@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Quorum must be in the cluster group. It is the reason the group exists.
The Quorum disk prevents split-brain problems. The Cluster group should
also have an IP Address and a Network Name Resource.
You can put the MSDTC resource in there too, but it can cause problems on
some very high volume systems.
All SQL resources should be in a different group. Note that disks are
physical resources. Logical OS partitions of the same disk cannot be split
into multiple groups.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob Smith" <BobSmith@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BD77D34-DC9D-4CB6-8325-9D32F50C9B58@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Geoff,
> Thanks for the reply, the only thing I can see is logwriter errors, which
> I
> googled and found more questions than answers, let me ask this: Can the
> Quroum and the physical disk be in different groups or should the be in
> the
> same, mine is set the the Quorum is in the Cluster group and the Physical
> disk is in group 0. By the way I see these errors on both nodes. What is
> best
> practice for the cluster group, what resourses should exist in it: Cluster
> IP, Cluster Name, MSDTC -?, Quorum -?
> Thanks again,
> Bob Smith
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Geoff,
Thanks, that is how it is setup Cluster group (Cluster IP, Cluster Name,
Disk Q and MSDTC) all other resourses are in another group, I am still
confused as too why SQL says it is online but the user/app cannot connect,
by restarting SQL server in studion management it comes online.
Thanks again,
Bob Smith
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23VBACR5VIHA.4140@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Quorum must be in the cluster group. It is the reason the group exists.
> The Quorum disk prevents split-brain problems. The Cluster group should
> also have an IP Address and a Network Name Resource.
> You can put the MSDTC resource in there too, but it can cause problems on
> some very high volume systems.
> All SQL resources should be in a different group. Note that disks are
> physical resources. Logical OS partitions of the same disk cannot be
> split into multiple groups.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Bob Smith" <BobSmith@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1BD77D34-DC9D-4CB6-8325-9D32F50C9B58@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Maybe an IP address conflict or a dependency error. Again, the application
log should say something.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob Smith" <bob@.neconsulting.net> wrote in message
news:4E7A31CB-2900-4ED3-A7A9-1B0800B2128C@.microsoft.com...
> Geoff,
> Thanks, that is how it is setup Cluster group (Cluster IP, Cluster Name,
> Disk Q and MSDTC) all other resourses are in another group, I am still
> confused as too why SQL says it is online but the user/app cannot connect,
> by restarting SQL server in studion management it comes online.
> Thanks again,
> Bob Smith
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23VBACR5VIHA.4140@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Cluster help

I got a question/prob:
I changed the ip addy of my CLUSTER (physical) and now my
virtual servers won't pass the "online pending" stage.
They maintained the old ips.Is this possible? Can anyone
tell me what can i do to get the online pending to online?
any info?
Try doing this : http://support.microsoft.com/?id=244980
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"

" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2734601c46350$29675d70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I got a question/prob:
> I changed the ip addy of my CLUSTER (physical) and now my
> virtual servers won't pass the "online pending" stage.
> They maintained the old ips.Is this possible? Can anyone
> tell me what can i do to get the online pending to online?
> any info?
>

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 Failover

Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
getting the following error:
Does anyone have any ideas'
Many Thanks
Event Type: Error
Event Source: ClusSvc
Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
Event ID: 1234
Date: 06/09/2006
Time: 09:09:18
User: N/A
Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
Description:
The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
rights:
Act as part of the operating system
These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
cluster setup and must not be removed.
User Action
Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
account's user object in Active Directory.
If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
administrator to find out if this is happening.Hi
Have you checked the rights? I assume it is a domain account that you are
using for the cluster service account?
John
<Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com> wrote in message
news:1157531034.223893.106160@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>|||It's probably time to work with your server admin folks to see what else are
being modified. Nobody should be revoking privileges like this from service
accounts. Whether it's modified systematically via some group policy or
manually by someone mucking around, you've got a potentially big problem.
Linchi
"Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com" wrote:

> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>|||Sounds like a GP issue -removing rights from the cluster service account.
Check with the Domain admins about providing a static profile to the cluster
service account.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com> wrote in message
news:1157531034.223893.106160@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>

Cluster Failover

Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
getting the following error:
Does anyone have any ideas'
Many Thanks
Event Type: Error
Event Source: ClusSvc
Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
Event ID: 1234
Date: 06/09/2006
Time: 09:09:18
User: N/A
Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
Description:
The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
rights:
Act as part of the operating system
These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
cluster setup and must not be removed.
User Action
Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
account's user object in Active Directory.
If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
administrator to find out if this is happening.Hi
Have you checked the rights? I assume it is a domain account that you are
using for the cluster service account?
John
<Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com> wrote in message
news:1157531034.223893.106160@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>|||It's probably time to work with your server admin folks to see what else are
being modified. Nobody should be revoking privileges like this from service
accounts. Whether it's modified systematically via some group policy or
manually by someone mucking around, you've got a potentially big problem.
Linchi
"Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com" wrote:
> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>|||Sounds like a GP issue -removing rights from the cluster service account.
Check with the Domain admins about providing a static profile to the cluster
service account.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<Joe.Mobley@.nationalexpress.com> wrote in message
news:1157531034.223893.106160@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Each morning I find that 1 of my servers has failed across and I'm
> getting the following error:
> Does anyone have any ideas'
> Many Thanks
> Event Type: Error
> Event Source: ClusSvc
> Event Category: Startup/Shutdown
> Event ID: 1234
> Date: 06/09/2006
> Time: 09:09:18
> User: N/A
> Computer: NXNHPSQLSRV1
> Description:
> The Cluster service account does not have the following required user
> rights:
> Act as part of the operating system
> These user rights were granted to the Cluster service account during
> cluster setup and must not be removed.
> User Action
> Assign these rights to the Cluster service account. One way to do this
> is to use Local Security Settings (Secpol.msc). Another way is to edit
> the Group Policy object that is associated with the Cluster service
> account's user object in Active Directory.
> If you have already assigned these rights to the Cluster service
> account, and the user rights appear to be removed, a Group Policy
> object might be removing the rights. Check with your domain
> administrator to find out if this is happening.
>

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Cluster testing

Cluster synchronize

Cluster SQL 2000 errorlog problem

Cluster SQL 2000 errorlog problem

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Cluster SQL 2000 errorlog problem

Cluster solution certification

cluster shutdown

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?

Cluster server slow, could different times on the servers be the cause?

Cluster question

Cluster question

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Cluster not visible to external IP

Cluster not visible to external IP

Cluster not visible to external IP

Cluster memory issue

Cluster Issue

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Cluster help

Cluster Hardware recommendation

Cluster Failover

Cluster Failover

Clearing LOG Files

Blog Archive

About Me