New big mission: Windows 2003 Clustering?

[ilceres]

Hi to all.

I need to start a new mission: a Web Server with 100% of availability... it will run: IIS, Exchange 2003 and SQL 2005.

Now I'm looking for solutions... I now that W2K3 Enterprise provide Clustering features...
Somebody knows if it's a good solutions?

Also I'm looking for

http://www.neverfailgroup.com/

but I can't find a trial version of software...

Any suggestion?

thanks in advance

Italian are WORLD CHAMPION

 

[Fatboy0341]

There is no such thing as 100% availability - and you ned to make sure management understands that.

 

[mrdenny]

Neverfail doesn't have a trial.

Windows 2005 has clustering which would give you 99.99% or 99.999% uptime. As fatboy said, there is no such thing as 100% up time. A cluster tables about 4-6 seconds to fail over between the nodes.

I'd recommend splitting the web server from the database/exchange server at the minimum. Typically SQL and Exchange are not hosted together as they are both CPU and RAM hogs and they tend not to play well on the same server.

For the web server get two small servers running Windows 2003 Web Edition and load ballance them. This will allow the web site to run off of both servers at the same time. If one goes down the other will continue to server the web pages. You can do the load ballancing via the Windows Load Ballancing Service (I think this is included with the Web edition, you'll want to check before purchasing), a hardware load ballancer (network switch, etc), or an ISA server.

For the SQL Server and Exchange (same box or different boxes), you'll need two matching servers with shared storage (either fiber such as a SAN or scsi).

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[ilceres]

That's right.

MrDenny my idea at the moment is about 2 box: one running IIS and SQL for the web pages and another run Exchange.

Yesterday I get a copy of Neverfail and I'm going to test them.

I don't want to share storage.... until it will be my last chance... I want to replicate it.

Mauro

Italian are WORLD CHAMPION

 

[terry712]

i would use shared storage
it is an essential if you want to cluster

replication is not a cluster - its a fudge that normally leads to data inconsistence

 

[ilceres]

This is my ideas of good working cluster:


NODE 1 -----PRIVATE CHANNEL------ NODE2
APPLICATION APPLICATION
| |
-----------PUBLIC(LAN)CHANNEL------------

NODE1 is active, NODE2 passive, get up when workload is hard or for failvoer

NODE2 replicate all data and setings from NODE1 by private channel

If i had to set a shared storage I'm not sure: in case of break of that storage (SCSI or fibre) my system will go down...

MAURO

Italian are WORLD CHAMPION

 

[mrdenny]

When you buy a shared strorage sdevice like a SAN you are buying a system that is a 5 nines system (99.999% uptime). I'll use EMC as an example as that's what we have at the office. Each unit comes with two heads. Each Head is connected to each drive shelf with 2 cables (4 cables going to each shelf). Our fibre fabric has two director class switches. Each switch is connected to each head via 2 fibre cables. Each server is connected to each vibre switch. This creates a totally redundant system. The host OS for the EMC (which is shared by both heads) is sitting on a dedicated 5 disk RAID 5 array (and has access to the hot spare in case of a drive failure). Pretty much the only way that both heads on the EMC can go down would be a multi-drive failure of the host OS drives, or a power failure of both redundant power circuits.

If I was designing this solution for my company or a client, I would recommend the following solution. (I'll use HP Servers as those are my normal server platform. You can convert this to what ever hardware platform you normally use.)

Web Servers
2 - HP DL360 Servers. Two single core CPUs, 1 Gig of RAM. Load Ballanced for redundancy. Windows 2003 Web Edition

Storage
EMC Clarian Storage Array. 1 Shelf of 146GB 10k drives (15 drives total; 10 usable, 5 reserved for EMC OS).

SQL Cluster
2 - HP DL 380s. Two Dual Core CPUs, 4 Gigs of RAM. Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, clustered. SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition (Standard Edition can be used if the features of Enterprise Edition are not needed, as the cost savings is quite large).

Exchange Cluster
2 - HP DL 380s. Two Dual Core CPUs, 4 Gigs of RAM. Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, clustered. Exchange 2003 Enterprise (I'm not sure if Standard Edition can be clustered or not).

If they wanted to save a little money on the high end hardware I'd recommend a single three node cluster of HP DL380s so they whould be sharing a passive node as the odds of both active nodes failing at the same time are very slim.

I wouldn't recommend host based failover software such as neverfail to a client unless they were trying to use it for failover to another site, and EMC to EMC replication wasn't available.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[58sniper]

You'd need Enterprise Exchange to cluster. But, I don't recommend clustering. It's an expensive route for little benefit. A properly spec'd box would have redundancy in the power supplies, CPUs, RAM, drives, etc. Short of a motherboard failure, you should achieve 5 9s. And, with Dell's 4 hour warranty (as an example), you could have a new motherboard in place in 4 hours. That barely breaks below the 5 9s (assuming no other problems over the year).

When you share an array between cluster nodes, some things that will hose a non-clustered box will still hose a clustered solution. This includes data corruption or loss, etc.

Just my .02, of course.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[ilceres]

Denny you talk about a great solution.... a pair of clustered server (then with Enterprise ed. $3,999x6) for each service with SAN in fibre channell for storage.....

Great solution, but how much it costs?

We are talking about a WebServer with SQL... (for now no Exchange needed)...

My client do not have shared storage already.. how much costs implementig a new SAN? (you talk about EMC.. is it expensive?)

So I'll buy W2k3 WEB Ed. $399x2 for the two server,and save the money for buy Neverfail with IIS and SQL server extensions... and I have a perfect cluster that replicate all and switchover in one second... and also can cluster between two different remote LAN...

Mission complete and money saved...

Mauro
(No Certification, only a great passion, experience and my own studies)

Italian are WORLD CHAMPION

 

[mrdenny]

Getting a new SAN is not cheep. You are probably looking at about $50,000 to start, possibally more. The sollution I proposed yes is a very high end solution. With a small database Neverfail would probably work fine. However I typically deal with very large databases, which have a very high transaction rate. These databases kill software based replication solutions like neverfail.

If you are thinking about site to site replication you need to ensure that you have enough bandwidth going between the sites to support your normal traffic, as well as the NeverFail traffic.

Where I currently work we have a 20 Meg Connection between our California and Texas offices. In order to support our DR setup, we are increasing that to a 100 Meg Connection, with the additional 80 Megs / sec dedicated to the DR traffic.

Do not forget the licensing that goes along with your solutions. A dual chip SQL Server running standard edition is going to run you about $12,000 for just the software (using CPU licensing). This cost will need to be factored in when setting up the budget for the project.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[Andreh]

High available solutions are not cheap at all. You get what you pay for. Great solution mrdenny. What sort of budget do you have in mind ilceres?

"Assumption is the mother of all f#%kups!

 

[ilceres]

Wow... I calculated 1900 $ for SQL... but it's only with 5 calls... I was wrong!
If the database it's world wide accessible I need the license for the CPu's.. right?

Andrech... my client don't tell me a specifich budget... but if I tell him: "You need more then 50.000 $" sure I will lose the commission...

I want to stay into 15.000 / 20.000 € but no way with 12000 $ for SQL

Italian are WORLD CHAMPION

 

[mrdenny]

Correct, with a SQL Server that needs to be available for a public web site you must go with CPU licensing. If money will be that much of an issue, start with a single chip dual core CPU. Microsoft licensing for SQL is done per physical chip, not per core. So a dual core CPU gives you an extra core for free. You will pay a little more for the dual core CPU over a single core CPU, but the SQL Savings will be very high.

If you get a dual CPU capable server but only install a single chip, you can buy a second CPU later if needed, and purchase the second CPU license at that time.

Each CPU license lists for about $6000 but if you shop the vendors you can probably get a better price. Also they have a license agreement with Microsoft they can get a discount there as well.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com