SQL 2005 Clustering

[chrisstyles]

Hi, Apologies if this has been dealt with before.

I need some information urgently for Budget purposes.

We are looking to setup a cluster for our PMS system which effectivly runs our firm and then look to migrate all our sql servers into one cluster.

I want a highly available, scalable cluster that has all data stored on a SAN.

Whats invloved, and what versions of the software do I need? If I use active passive, do I need licenses on the passive node etc.

Any help or advice would be great, cheers, chris

Chris Styles

NT4/2000 MCSE

 

[mrdenny]

If you are active Passive you only have to license the active node.

If you only need a two node cluster you can use SQL 2005 Standard. If you want over two nodes you need SQL 2005 Enterprise Edition.

Take a look at my FAQ on licensing faq962-5153. It coves most of this.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration / Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005) / Database Developer (SQL 2005)

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[oracleSQLdba]

Denny's right about 2 node clusters with Standard edition but I'd hesitate if you're looking for blistering performance.

As for what you need (Abbreviated version)

Two Identical servers which comply with MSFT hardware compatibility list.
SAN switches (plural because you'll want two paths to the storage)
Ethernet switches, patch cords, etc. along with Fiber channel.
Storage--absolute key to this whole thing. EMC still rocks the industry and worth every penny.


DatabaseAdmins.com
Remote DBA Services

 

[chrisstyles]

Thanks for the help so far.

I am thinking that we will be needing two active nodes to split the load and one passive that can take over should either node fail. Is this possible?

As for the SAN we have a storage tek array which with the addition of a few fc disks should be OK. Agree they should be dual path though.

Chris Styles

NT4/2000 MCSE

 

[mrdenny]

When you setup clusting you are not increasing the processing power just setting up redundancy.

There is no way to tell a single instance of SQL Server to run on two active nodes. Resources run on a single node of the cluster.

If you needed to spread the load across the databases you would need to federate your databases across two instances.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration / Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005) / Database Developer (SQL 2005)

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[chrisstyles]

Hmm, I've never heard of Database Federation, still a lot to read on the subject.

With reference to splitting the load, what I mean was have some databases on one node and some on another, then I would require the passive node to be able to assume to role of either node. I am not sure this is going to be possible.

It's a bit of a nightmare the more I read on the subject. Wether to go for high availability or high performance etc.

Ideally I am going to need a sql system preferably 64 bit to can handle upto 500 GB of data move forward to about 1 TB. This will be across several applications and databases. All this data needs to be available, either automatically or manualy at our DR site which is connected via a Les 100. Would I be correct, that the best way to do this part is Mirroring the datbases?

As for Mirroring there seems to be a few options available.



Chris Styles

NT4/2000 MCSE

 

[oracleSQLdba]

You need to check out majority node set clustering. Or Veritas Cluster services.