To all the SQL H/A experts, we were wondering if we could have 3 physical nodes and 2 active/passive clusters architecture setup on a SAN as seen in the image below? http://www.geocities.com/juanlieu/CP_Arch.JPGIn case you cannot see the diagram, it would looks something like this:
active/passive Cluster A ---> physical server A (Win2003/SQL2005) ---> HP EVA SAN ---> physical server B (Win2003/SQL2005) ---> HP EVA SANactive/passive Cluster B ---> physical server B (Win2003/SQL2005) ---> HP EVA SAN ---> physical server C (Win2003/SQL2005) ---> HP EVA SAN
In this setup, I understand that Server B cannot be called upon as the active server at the SAME time by both clusters. question: what would happens if it does, would Server B reject the last cluster that calls it?Appreciated in advance.
Is anyone running SQL Server 2000 clusters on an IBM SAN (FAStT or ESS800)? Could you shed some light and provide links if any to IBM and/or Microsoft sites on this issues
I am supporting 2 node cluster sql 2005 servers (Windows 2003 computers). Active and passive cluster.
Right now sql services are running under local system account , as per standard should be run on sql service account. So please let me know how to change, with out impacting the application
Can i directly change sql services to service account on passive node ?
As I understand it, if I have a 4 CPU box and I buy 4 processor licenses for SQL Server 2005 Standard, I can run 16 instances of SQL Server on that box.
Now given a cluster set up for active/passive I understand that if I license the same way I can have 16 instances on one of the nodes of the cluster. In the event of a failure, the instances can fail over to the "passive" node and the licenses move with them.
So heres the question. Given my two node cluster, each node has 4 CPUs, if I have some of the resources on node 1, and others on node 2, so instances are running on node 1 and node 2, am I on the hook for 8 processor licenses?
Does anyone know of any issues with using Active/Passive or Active/Active clusters and log shipping. Will log shipping still work if a failover occurs?
I have a MS Clustering model based on knowledge-area and I want to rename each cluster to the name of the knowledge area. What would be the DMX to rename the cluster?
I have been trying to do something like -
UPDATE [Knowledge Base].Content SET Node_Caption = [Knowledge Base].[Field]
(Field is the column in the mining structure [Knowledge Base] with the values to be assigned to the Node_Caption)
But this does not work. The DMX query editor on parsing the query says that it reached the end of input.
I am about to move 8 SQL 2000 clusters instances residing on 2 seperate MCS clusters (4 instances each with 2 nodes each active/passive) to one single MCS cluster (2 nodes active/passive). The SQL Cluster VMs will have the same DNS names and IPs, however the MCS VM and nodes will have different names.
The planned method for moving the DBs is just to stop all SQL services copy the system and user MDF and LDF files and then restart SQL. From everything I have read this should be fine. However here are my concerns on a cluster platform:
Will the change in node names on the target cluster be a problem when moving the master DBs over from source SQL VMs? Are the cluster nodes listed somewhere in the Master DB?
A couple of the SQL instance VMs are invovled in transactional replication. If all of the SQL files are copied over and the target VM has the same DNS and IP name, will there be a problem with the transactional replication when SQL is restarted?
I am working on a project and we are starting to spec out our back end database systems. I wish to have multiple SQL Servers in a cluster PLUS failover running fiber against SANS storage arrays to partition the databases.
Has anyone seen any articles on this or know of any sources for support etc. ?
Our volume is sporatic but during enrollment phases (2 week long periods) we can have as many as 100,000 visitors registering (small datasets, large volume of logic) Thanks,
I used Microsoft clustering for grouping my data. Even though i already cleaned the data and have no null values i get one cluster with missing values in every attribute. (i set CLUSTER_COUNT=3 and i'm using Scalable k-means algorithm)
Does "missing" mean that the algorithm cannot group that particular tuple in another group so it consider it as missing?
In a response posted Nov 21 (Clustering Dimension), Jamie wrote...
"The only option of using a table-based model as a dimension is to write out the cluster labels and simply make the cluster label as a dimension attribute. You could even append the cluster label to the source data (e.g. the customer table) and not have a seperate dimension, simply a browseable attribute on the dimension of interest"
Jamie, can you provide more information on how to do this? We'd like to have a series of clusters in an existing household dimension. That is, we need multiple occurences of cluster model results over time browsable in the source cube. I've looked at the data source, dimension, and cube created by the data mining model, but I don't see where the case ID (Household Key) and the cluster name could be extracted to update the existing dimension. We're using the cube for the data mining source.
This would also help to fix a recurring problem we have with keeping the linked cube and the source cube metadata in sync. If I make a change to the source cube, say by adding a new measure, the metadata for the linked cube gets out of sync. I've been deleting the data mining dimension, cube, and dsv and them adding them back in using the data mining menu in the model.
We have 2 SQL 2012 servers. Our application has 2 databases. We are creating an AlwaysOn cluster. Is it good to create 2 AlwaysOn clusters to have 1 database primary on one of the servers and the other database primary on the other server?
I have been asked if it is possible to have one database running on one server and the other database on the other server. Is this possible without creating 2 separate AlwaysOn clusters?
I have been reading through many postings here, through the MS SQL Server Unleashed book by SAMS, the MS SQL Tech article "Failover clustering for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services" for installing a brand new SQL 2005 2 node cluster.
So far I have not found the definitive answer that I am looking for and that is, what rights does the SQL service account need to work properly? One article states that it needs both Domain Admin permissions and local admin permissions (and this is a domain account by the way) and then another article states that it only needs domain users group permissions and the least amount of privledges possible.
Can anyone please tell me what is correct for installation and running the server? The more I read about this the more confused I get.
What kind of criterion is used by MS clustering algorithm to determine the number of clusters when 0 is specified in the algorithm parameters?
The problem is that I find automatically defined cluster number somehow strange, especially when expactation maximization algorithm is used. I tried to "manually" calculate optimal cluster numbers in my models using bayesian information criterion and the one by Akaike and received more understandable results.
I have an active passive cluster on my primary Data center in NY and have a DR Active / passive SQL Cluster in TX. These are two separate clusters in the same domain using the same SQL server credentials.Both clusters host an active / passive SQL instance. Lets call it SQLNY(Primary) and SQLTX (DR). I want to enable always On Availability group within the two SQL Instances SQLNY and SQLTX. The listener will be SQLAG which will be used by the Application to connect to the SQL instance. Is there a practical way to implement this? This will not only give me instant fail over within the NY (Primary) but also give me the flexibility to fail over to TX. I am using SQL 2014 Enterprise Edition on both clusters.
We have database thats transaction intensive, so we are trying to sepetrare ldf file from mdf file to a different disk array. what raid should I use for the Transactional log file(.ldf).
I would like to know where I can find a senior database architect. Someone who can develop and implement the database and its stored procedures. I am looking for an experienced person.
It is a contract position, in San Franicisco. The pay is good. Could anyone help me? I tried Dice, Monster and it seems all of you are working...
I am replacing the corporate SQL Server at work. The new server will have 6 striped disks of 160G with about 4G of RAM. The current SQL Server currently has two instances which run web applications and a small database warehouse about 6G. Analysis Services is also installed.
Due to a couple of new apps being added to the server and the SQL Server 2000 enterprise license we acquired, i was thinking of adding 2 more instances so that the applications can be independently managed in terms of restarting the SQL Server. I also would like to permanently fix the memory settings on each instance to give more resources to more important applications. The log and data files would also be spilt onto 2 separate hard disks. i understand there are implications on performance such as CPU etc. Is it normally advisable to have more than 1 or 2 instances ? Most of the applications are not very CPU intensive. What other implications or performance issues would l have ?
We will be creating a moderately high-volume OLTP database application that needs 24/7 availability. We are planning to offload OLAP processing to a second copy of the system. We will be using SQL Server 2005.
I originally planned to set the second server up with SQL Server 2005 mirroring to cover the 24/7 availability requirement, with the idea that we could also do OLAP reporting off of the mirrored copy of the database. But I've gotten some indications that a mirror database is offline and not available for querying. So I figured I would use transactional replication to keep the OLAP database current. Now I am wondering if I need to use mirroring at all, or if I should just use transactional replication on the entire database and swap to the replicated database if the production server crashes.
What is everyone's opinion?
Replication only, for both OLAP reporting and failover? Mirroring to one database for failover, with replication to a another database for OLAP reporting?
I've implemented a solution with application, database and report server on seperate machines. The application is a web app and is Internet facing. What is the best method for executing reports on the RS server that are initiated from the web server? Using URL access requires a login or anonymous access neither of which are desired. Web services works but I loose access to the toolbar. Is there some other way to pull this off where I can let the public access reports and give them access to the toolbar?
