I'm not sure if this is a Windows issue or a SQL Server in a cluster issue,
but it's strange.
We have a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise w/SP2 Running in a cluster. The
only thing on these servers is SQL Server. It's behind a firewall with only
the SQL ports open.
The problem we are running into is that from time to time, the primary node
in the SQL Cluster become unresponsive to the public NIC and the heartbeat
NIC and it doesn't failover. You can't RDP to it and the Cluster
administrator doesn't pick it up. You can't even ping the primary or
heartbeat from the passive node. It's like it is just not there.
There is a monitor NIC on this server as well, and they are throwing NO
alarms.
After about 20 minutes, it comes back.
Should this go to the Cluster group? Any suggestions?I would suggest taking it to the Windows Cluster group. I believe SQL runs
on top of the Cluster service, so.
"Kevin A" <kevina@.cqlcorp.com> wrote in message
news:Oo9HQ5FiIHA.4468@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure if this is a Windows issue or a SQL Server in a cluster
> issue, but it's strange.
> We have a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise w/SP2 Running in a cluster. The
> only thing on these servers is SQL Server. It's behind a firewall with
> only the SQL ports open.
> The problem we are running into is that from time to time, the primary
> node in the SQL Cluster become unresponsive to the public NIC and the
> heartbeat NIC and it doesn't failover. You can't RDP to it and the
> Cluster administrator doesn't pick it up. You can't even ping the primary
> or heartbeat from the passive node. It's like it is just not there.
> There is a monitor NIC on this server as well, and they are throwing NO
> alarms.
> After about 20 minutes, it comes back.
> Should this go to the Cluster group? Any suggestions?
>
Showing posts with label cluster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cluster. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Looking for suggestions on specs
Hello,
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement. As
for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
logs on RAID10.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Hello,
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
|||Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit as
much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
Example:
if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
completely.
In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and create
a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
anything in the cluster group.
As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
cluster for DTC purposes.
... my two cents ...
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
> putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
> transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tom,
> Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
> correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same
group[vbcol=seagreen]
> that share the same physical disk?
> Jake
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
have
>
|||Guys,
Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question, hopefully
, in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively small
size (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
reading. Thanks again for the input.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
> In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and
> create
> a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
> move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
> problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
> anything in the cluster group.
> As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
> cluster for DTC purposes.
> ... my two cents ...
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> group
> the
> have
>
|||"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC is
pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that can
cause you to run out of drive letters.
Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.
> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
goes away.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
|||Jake,
Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see KB
280345
That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with 500MB
I have never seen any problems !
I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question,
hopefully[vbcol=seagreen]
>, in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively small
> size (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
> guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
> reading. Thanks again for the input.
>
> Jake
>
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not[vbcol=seagreen]
Cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
consider[vbcol=seagreen]
setup
>
|||Edwin,
Thanks.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23yfvWgZCHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jake,
> Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see
> KB
> 280345
> That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with
> 500MB
> I have never seen any problems !
> I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
>
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> hopefully
> not
> Cluster
> this
> consider
> setup
>
|||Russ,
I have considered all that before I posted, and must say you are absolutely
right, and KB 301600 details the microsft view on this.
Where on one hand they say "leave it in the cluster group" and in the same
article they say "create a sepereate group".
For drive letters, and the "cost" of a small disk, I think each should look
at their own config of SAN and cluster to determine if an additional disk is
feasible.
Then again... if you likely to run out of drive-letters, you might be
pushing a solution with mountpoints already.
In regards to disabling the "affect group" property, you should always do
that if you add the MSDTC into cluster group, however I have seen people
forget this, or even admins who noticed this disabled and enabled it,
because they did not understand the purpose of disabling.
in my opinion, a seperate group for MSDTC will never jeaporadise resources
in the cluster group, while MSDTC in the cluster group might (in some
circumstances)... its about minimising risk... and uptime !
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Russ Kaufmann" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:OpK7UNZCHHA.468@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not
> I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC
is
> pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> cause you to run out of drive letters.
> Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
> Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
> group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
> its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.
Cluster
> Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
> goes away.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
>
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement. As
for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
logs on RAID10.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Hello,
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
|||Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit as
much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
Example:
if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
completely.
In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and create
a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
anything in the cluster group.
As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
cluster for DTC purposes.
... my two cents ...
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
> putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
> transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tom,
> Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
> correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same
group[vbcol=seagreen]
> that share the same physical disk?
> Jake
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
have
>
|||Guys,
Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question, hopefully
, in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively smallsize (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
reading. Thanks again for the input.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
> In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and
> create
> a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
> move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
> problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
> anything in the cluster group.
> As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
> cluster for DTC purposes.
> ... my two cents ...
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> group
> the
> have
>
|||"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC is
pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that can
cause you to run out of drive letters.
Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.
> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
goes away.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
|||Jake,
Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see KB
280345
That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with 500MB
I have never seen any problems !
I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question,
hopefully[vbcol=seagreen]
>
, in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively small> size (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
> guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
> reading. Thanks again for the input.
>
> Jake
>
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not[vbcol=seagreen]
Cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
consider[vbcol=seagreen]
setup
>
|||Edwin,
Thanks.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23yfvWgZCHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jake,
> Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see
> KB
> 280345
> That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with
> 500MB
> I have never seen any problems !
> I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
>
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> hopefully
> not
> Cluster
> this
> consider
> setup
>
|||Russ,
I have considered all that before I posted, and must say you are absolutely
right, and KB 301600 details the microsft view on this.
Where on one hand they say "leave it in the cluster group" and in the same
article they say "create a sepereate group".
For drive letters, and the "cost" of a small disk, I think each should look
at their own config of SAN and cluster to determine if an additional disk is
feasible.
Then again... if you likely to run out of drive-letters, you might be
pushing a solution with mountpoints already.
In regards to disabling the "affect group" property, you should always do
that if you add the MSDTC into cluster group, however I have seen people
forget this, or even admins who noticed this disabled and enabled it,
because they did not understand the purpose of disabling.
in my opinion, a seperate group for MSDTC will never jeaporadise resources
in the cluster group, while MSDTC in the cluster group might (in some
circumstances)... its about minimising risk... and uptime !
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Russ Kaufmann" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:OpK7UNZCHHA.468@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not
> I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC
is
> pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> cause you to run out of drive letters.
> Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
> Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
> group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
> its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.
Cluster
> Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
> goes away.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
>
Looking for suggestions Cluster or Mirror
Hello,
We currently have one instance of SQL2k5 SP1. We have a couple of publications, and 30 subscribers, on the instance and are considering going to either a cluster environment or db mirroring. Currently our instance seems to be busy and I am wondering if clustering really gives it a performance boost. What are your thoughts/suggestions on going to a cluster environment versus just db mirroring? Can mirroring be used for real-time failover as we need to add that as well? Thanks in advance.
John
Fail-over clustering and database mirroring are both high availability solutions that don't have any direct effect on performance. Fail-over clustering relies on shared external storage between the nodes (which is a potential single point of failure), and requires higher-end hardware in most cases. It works at the instance level. Failing over a node in the cluster typically takes 1-2 minutes on a large, active database instance.
Database mirroring works at the database level(not the instance level). There are two copies of the data (one on the Principle and one on the Mirror), so you need twice the storage space. Only the Principal database is available to service clients. If you want automatic fail-over with DB Mirroring, you need a Witness Server. You have to be running in Synchronous mode with Saftey turned on to get automatic fail-over with DB Mirroring. Database fail-over with mirroring is more like 10-15 seconds.
If you are doing Replication, it will might be easier to do fail-over clustering.
|||here are some resources that may be helpful in your decision-making:
Failover Clustering white paper:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=818234dc-a17b-4f09-b282-c6830fead499&DisplayLang=en
Database Mirroring:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirror.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirfaq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
SQL Server 2005 High Availability Resources:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/themes/high-availability.mspx
Looking for suggestions Cluster or Mirror
Hello,
We currently have one instance of SQL2k5 SP1. We have a couple of publications, and 30 subscribers, on the instance and are considering going to either a cluster environment or db mirroring. Currently our instance seems to be busy and I am wondering if clustering really gives it a performance boost. What are your thoughts/suggestions on going to a cluster environment versus just db mirroring? Can mirroring be used for real-time failover as we need to add that as well? Thanks in advance.
John
Fail-over clustering and database mirroring are both high availability solutions that don't have any direct effect on performance. Fail-over clustering relies on shared external storage between the nodes (which is a potential single point of failure), and requires higher-end hardware in most cases. It works at the instance level. Failing over a node in the cluster typically takes 1-2 minutes on a large, active database instance.
Database mirroring works at the database level(not the instance level). There are two copies of the data (one on the Principle and one on the Mirror), so you need twice the storage space. Only the Principal database is available to service clients. If you want automatic fail-over with DB Mirroring, you need a Witness Server. You have to be running in Synchronous mode with Saftey turned on to get automatic fail-over with DB Mirroring. Database fail-over with mirroring is more like 10-15 seconds.
If you are doing Replication, it will might be easier to do fail-over clustering.
|||here are some resources that may be helpful in your decision-making:
Failover Clustering white paper:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=818234dc-a17b-4f09-b282-c6830fead499&DisplayLang=en
Database Mirroring:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirror.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/dbmirfaq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
SQL Server 2005 High Availability Resources:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/themes/high-availability.mspx
Looking for step by step guide/white paper to install MS SQL Clust
Hello,
I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
(setup as standard).
Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
hardware/software requirements?
Thanks,
Don DiegoHi
There is quite alot of information in books online:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
John
"dondiego" wrote:
> Hello,
> I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> (setup as standard).
> Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> hardware/software requirements?
> Thanks,
> Don Diego|||Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> There is quite alot of information in books online:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> John
> "dondiego" wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > (setup as standard).
> > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > hardware/software requirements?
> > Thanks,
> > Don Diego|||Hi
You may also want to look at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/planning/server/clustersteps.asp
John
"dondiego" wrote:
> Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > There is quite alot of information in books online:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> >
> > Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> >
> > John
> >
> > "dondiego" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > > (setup as standard).
> > > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > > hardware/software requirements?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Don Diego|||Hi
Other things to look at!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;259267&sd=tech
John
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> You may also want to look at
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/planning/server/clustersteps.asp
> John
> "dondiego" wrote:
> > Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > There is quite alot of information in books online:
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> > >
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> > >
> > > Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > "dondiego" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > > > (setup as standard).
> > > > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > > > hardware/software requirements?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Don Diego
I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
(setup as standard).
Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
hardware/software requirements?
Thanks,
Don DiegoHi
There is quite alot of information in books online:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
John
"dondiego" wrote:
> Hello,
> I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> (setup as standard).
> Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> hardware/software requirements?
> Thanks,
> Don Diego|||Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> There is quite alot of information in books online:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> John
> "dondiego" wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > (setup as standard).
> > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > hardware/software requirements?
> > Thanks,
> > Don Diego|||Hi
You may also want to look at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/planning/server/clustersteps.asp
John
"dondiego" wrote:
> Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > There is quite alot of information in books online:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> >
> > Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> >
> > John
> >
> > "dondiego" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > > (setup as standard).
> > > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > > hardware/software requirements?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Don Diego|||Hi
Other things to look at!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;259267&sd=tech
John
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> You may also want to look at
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/planning/server/clustersteps.asp
> John
> "dondiego" wrote:
> > Thanks John - I'll have a look at the links.
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > There is quite alot of information in books online:
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> > >
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_clustering_2icn.asp
> > >
> > > Not a step by step guide but check out the following and links in Appendix B
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/32bitconsolidation.mspx
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > "dondiego" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I need to install a MS SQL 2000 Cluster server which will include 2 nodes
> > > > (setup as standard).
> > > > Where can I find a step by step documentation about that and
> > > > hardware/software requirements?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Don Diego
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)