Hello,
I have a two node SQL 2000 cluster running on windows 2003 enterprise server. We need to replace the SAN disks. Can we not disable SQL service & Cluster service, copy the contents from existing disks to target disks, swap the drive letter & start the services?
What is the best practice to do this? Appreciate your help.
Thanks
Rajan
OS Windows Server 2012
SQL 2012
I have a software that presents a drive to a 2 node cluster.
Not sure how I would go about presenting this newly presented drive as a Cluster Resource and make SQL depend on this resource.
I am getting following errors in my Cluster Validation report when trying to create a Windows Cluster.
I have 2 nodes DB01 and DB02 . Each has 1 public ip, 1 private ip (for heartbeat), 2 private ips for SAN1 and SAN2. The private ip's to SAN are directly connected via Network Adaptor in DB01 and DB02.
Validate Microsoft MPIO-based disks
Description: Validate that disks that use Microsoft Multipath I/O (MPIO) have been configured correctly.
Start: 9/9/2014 1:57:52 PM.
No disks were found on which to perform cluster validation tests.
Stop: 9/9/2014 1:57:53 PM.
[Code] ...
Are there any issues with installing SQL 2000 on a server with Dynamic Disks configured with RAID 1 Mirroring ? I know that with Dynamic Disks there are no partitions but rather volumes. Is the drive configuration setup the same way ?. Would I setup a volume for the O/S and a volume for SQL ? The reason I need to use Dynamic Disks is because we will be integrating it later with an EMC SAN solution.
View 1 Replies View Related
Can both be used with SQL server ? Dynamic disks provide more flexibility, is there performance imact ?
Thank you.
I have a new server.
It was shipped with a 76 gig drive setup in RAID 1 (2 disk) and a 400 gig drive setup in RAID 5 (4 disk).
I would like to determine what is the best way to setup up the partitions. What size and what should be placed on each.
Like the C: Drive...Should I just put Windows on there and nothing else? Do I stand to gain something from not using part of that 76 gigs as a D: drive for my apps?
Any help appreciated!
Is there any performance enhancements to be gained by storing frequently 'trigger-written-to' databases on a seperate disk to the source database? In particular, we keep a 'history' database of all inserts/updates/deletes against records, activated by triggers, and I was wondering if I would gain performance enhancement by locating the two databases on different disks?
Thanks in advance
I am trying to build the 2 node 2 clusters with the AlwaysOn.
Here isthe landscape.
2 nodes PROD failover cluster (running once instance)
2 nodes DR failover cluster (running 2 instances - DR and PRE-PROD)
Both clusters are in different geographies.
PRE-PROD can be editable. So out of scope of Always On.
One instance on PROD -> DR of the other box. [Want to achive thru AlwaysON]
Now my Question:
1) Do i need to have all the 4 nodes in same failover cluster group? If yes, then this would become MultiSubnet cluster Or Is there any way those 2 diffrerent failover clusters (one DR and one PROD) can be part of AlwaysOn.
2) Can i use the clustered disks as in the above landscape for always on?
Hi All
I am in process of moving a SQL 2005 solution from a development box that used local storage to UAT environment with SAN attached storage. The solution uses database snapshots
The database files are on the SAN storage but during testing I was unable to create a Database snapshot on the SAN disk. Creating snapshots on the local disk worked fine.
Is their some restriction/problem in using the database snapshot technology with SAN storage?
I've read that if particular tables are frequently queried together through a join then these tables should be placed on different devices on different physical disks.
What does this mean exactly and how would you configure this?
Is this a common practice in high-performance real-world environments (or should it be)?
Hello,
I am managing a sqlserver 6.5 database in my company. I get the message that the datafiles should be expanded but whenever I try to expand it the following message appears:
Could not find enough space on disks to extend the database. Meanwhile, I have about 6 gigabytes free space on my disks. Please help me out.
Thanks,
Albert
Why I see absolutely no performance improvement when I spread my primary file group over 8 separate files on 8 separate disks, as opposed to having the primary file group all in one file on one disk.
I have set up 2 identical databases, one spread over 8 disks and one on one disk. Each database has a table called DATA and a column called VALUE. Value is NVARCHAR(200). I have filled each table up in both databases with 20,000 rows.
I then perform a select on each table in each database using CHECKPOINT and DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS to ensure I am reading from disk before each query and the execution times are identical in both databases.
I then ran the same queries against each database using a load testing tool and the batch requests per second on each DB is identical under load.
Surely the database with data spread over 8 disks should be FAR faster than the single file database as you have the combined reading power of 8 disks as opposed to 2??
Also, the same is happening for write speeds. When I create the data on both databases, the time it takes is identical on both.
BOL says it should be faster with multiple disks.
Just FYI this is on an Azure virtual machine and each disk is a locally redundant data disk that I have attached to the virtual machine.
Whether write speeds should increase with multiple disks or just read speeds?
I am wondering what would be the best disk/RAID setup for a Windows server 2008 R2 OS and SQL Server 2012 database that has heavy read/write. I have the following disks I can use:
4x 15k 146GB
2x 10k 600GB
According to the server build requirements for the application, I need 100GB for the OS and 290GB for the drive containing the SQL mdf there are no stated requirements for the ldf, but would like to know if it should be allocated elsewhere?I should do RAID 10 for the 15k drives for SQL and RAID 1 for the OS on the 10k.
I am testing out a blank database created over two physical files on two separate disks with one table called data which has one column called values nvarchar(max).
I filled the table up with a whole load of data and ran a select * against it. If I run Permon at the same time I can see that the read load has been spread over multiple disks as each of these disks is getting read from in parallel. If I create the same database on a single file and run the same select * again it takes much longer, proving that the read load has been distributed across multiple disks.
Now moving onto writes, this is where the confusion lies. I understand that SQL server fills files evenly until they need growing, after which it will then fill files individually until they are full in a round robin fashion unless you have trace 1117 turned on. What I don't understand is why the writes aren't distributed out whilst it is filling these file groups.
I ran an continual insert into my table with go 1000000 to monitor how the files are being filled up. I monitored where SQL server was physically placing the files as they were being inserted by running the following query:
;WITH CTE AS
(SELECT
sys.fn_PhysLocFormatter (%%physloc%%) col1,
RIGHT(LEFT(sys.fn_PhysLocFormatter (%%physloc%%),2),1) AS [Physical RID],
DATAID
[Code] ....
I could see that it would a thousand or so records into file 1, then a thousand or so into file 2, then a thousand or so into file 1 etc etc. In another words it would hit one disk, then another disk, then back to disk one to fill the file evenly. Is there any way to make SQL Server distribute the writes out in parallel so that both disks are writing in tandem?
By the looks of it, multiple disks only scale reads, as with writes only one disk is ever written to at once which is annoying. Any way to harness the write power of multiple disks?
During the installation of Adding node to a SQL Server failover cluster(On passive node) getting error like.. The MOF compiler could not connect with the WMI server. This is either because of a semantic error such as an incompatibility with the existing WMI repository or an actual error such as the failure of the WMI server to start.We run the below commands but didn’t get any resolution & got the same above error .
1<sup>st</sup> Method…
1. Open console command (Run->CMD with administrator privileges).
2. net stop winmgmt
3. Rename folder %windir%System32WbemRepository to other one, for backup purposes (for example _Repository).
4. net start winmgmt
2<sup>nd</sup> Method..
1. Disable and stop the WMI service.
a) Command : - sc config winmgmt start= disabled
b. Command : - net stop winmgmt
2. Run the following commands.
a). Command: Winmgmt /salvagerepository %windir%System32wbem
b). Command: Winmgmt /resetrepository %windir%System32wbem
3. Re-enable the WMI service
Command: sc config winmgmt start= auto
Last command to run after above steps
4. Command: mofcomp "%programfiles(x86)%Microsoft SQL Server100Sharedsqlmgmproviderxpsp2up.mof"
File not found Error for above command.
I am in the process of moving databases from a SQL 2005 Standard version to a 2-node 2014 cluster.All of my 2005 databases back up successfully.They all restore without issue except for one database that has a full text catalog. I get this message
Msg 7610, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
Access is denied to "fileStoragedataMSSQLSERVERFullTextCatalog", or the path is invalid.
Msg 3156, Level 16, State 50, Line 2
File 'sysft_FTCatalog' cannot be restored to 'fileStoragedataMSSQLSERVERFullTextCatalog'. Use WITH MOVE to identify a valid location for the file.
Msg 3119, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
Problems were identified while planning for the RESTORE statement. Previous messages provide details.
Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
[code]....
I went as far as giving the folder full access to everyone temporarily and received the same error.
I ran the Advanced cluster preparation for a new sql instance on an existing cluster.
Slq Server 2012.
After is completed, it was successful, I realized I specified the wrong Instance Root directory.
Is it possible to remove what the preparation installed? Or is it possible to change the root directory?
Can I build a cluster by adding the cluster service, then the SQL instances, then add the other nodes and their passive SQL instances?I would lean to building the cluster first, the add the SQL instances.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI´ve been reading that SQL Server 2012 Always On is dependent on having a Windows Failover Cluster setup. Is that correct ?
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have following script which i am planning to run to drop all non-clustered primary keys on a database and then created as clustered. I am using someone else's script so don't know how to modify this. Some of primary key columns are used in references in other tables.
is there anyway i can drop the existing primary keys and using their original script then create again as clustered including restoring all foreign and reference keys and unique or no unique.
DECLARE @table NVARCHAR(512), @tablename NVARCHAR(512),
@sql NVARCHAR(MAX), @sql2 NVARCHAR(MAX), @sql3 NVARCHAR(MAX),
@column NVARCHAR(MAX);
DECLARE @indexname NVARCHAR(512);
SELECT name As 'Table'
[Code] ....
can we join a node in a windows cluster which is already in a different cluster?
We have this requirement as we need to setup readable secondary ( always on AG) on the third node.
We are planning to change all IPs of PRODUCTION Failover Cluster Setup. In my cluster setup ... we have 2 Physical Nodes with windows-2008, Roles are MSDTC and SQL-2008R2.
IP change for:
1. Both Nodes(Physical)
2. MSDTC
3. SQL Server
4. windows Cluster
So Almost... All IPs are going to change.
Im DBA here, I need to take care of SQL cluster and MSDTC. But I haven't performed this activity before.So I'm worrying about Impacts and consequences of this change. steps how should I perform this activity.
Hi all,
We have many tables which have cluster index on column with datatype 'Char(200)'.
Does anyone have script to change cluster index to noncluster for all user tables which have clustered index on a column with 'char(200)' datatype.
Thanks,
Deepak
Wanted to know about difference between cluster and non cluster index with example.
When to use cluster index and non cluster index .
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Access](
[AdminID] [int] NOT NULL,
[FnID] [int] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_AccessFn] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
[Code] ....
why the cluster and non cluster indexed created on the same key?
I am trying to upgrade a SQL Server 6.5(Cluster) to SQL Serevr 7.0 (Cluster)..I already have an intsllation of 7.0(On a Cluster),so this means that 6.5 and sql 7 are on seperate cluster's ,if i try to upgrade from 6.5 Cluster to 7.0 Cluster is asks me to uncluster 6.5 and 7.0 is this correct ,assume i cannot break the cluster then what???.. what is the best way i can achieve this functinality.....
thanks in advance
Jack
Hi
We are planning to upgrade the SQL Server in our production environment from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. This is a 4 Node cluster environment with 3 Databases on 3 Virtual instances. The main requirement is to achieve this with no/minimal downtime.
Could you please suggest or direct me to any documentation for the best practices used to upgrade such an environment?
Thanks
Priyanka
We have (had) an active/active cluster. 2 physical machines,
each running their own instance, clustered together. Node1/Ins1 and Node2/Ins2.
Node2 failed and Ins2 failed over to Node1 as it should. Node2 required that we
rebuild the server (rebuild = reinstall O/S). Now we need to get Node2 back
into the cluster and get Ins2 failed back over to Node2.
Does anyone know, for certain, the correct steps to accomplish this? Obviously,
we could backup everything and completely destroy Ins2 and recreate it on Node2
then rejoin the cluster. But I'm looking for something less destructive.
Is it possible to reinstall SQL, then rejoin the cluster, and then fail Node2
over? Or will there be registry conflictions?
Any help would be appreciated. Also, if you have any links to some official
documentation, that would be great too.
Thanks
We're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 cluster (Active/Passive) running on Windows 2000 Server to a SQL Server 2005 Cluster running on Windows Server 2003. We can't purchase new hardware and we have no spare hardware. We also need to move from Windows 2000 Server to Windows 2003 Server at the same time. We want to keep downtime to a bare minimum.
What we were thinking was the following steps... Anyone try this?
1. Break the link between the servers.
2. Install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on one side along with SQL Server 2005. While this step is running, the active node would still be live on Windows 2000 Server and SQL Server 2000 serving our customers.
3. Restore a copy of a backup from the active production side to the node we're upgrading and at that point we would bring the active node down, switching the active node to be the newly upgraded server.
4. As a final step, the old active node would now have the link to it broken, we would install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on it and sql server 2005. At this point we would bring it back into the cluster and the cluster would be complete again.
Thoughts?
Friends -
Need your help and guidence for doing upgrading SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
Let me explain my current environment.
1. Currently SQL Server 2000 Cluster environment is running on Windows 2000 Server we need to upgrade this to SQL Server 2005 on Windows 2003 Server. >>> Production environment.
My Plans:
1. On Testing Environment Install SQL Server 2000 cluster on Windows 2003 Server and do a restore of databases from the produciton environment.
2. Upgrade In-Place from SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
My doubts
1. Can i install SQL Server 2000 Cluster on Windows 2003 Server. Is it possible or not.
Please advise me and correct my steps.
Cheers
VSH
Can the SQL Cluster Virtual IP be the same as the cluster IP?
Can I set up the cluster like:
Node 1:10.0.0.1
Node 2:10.0.0.2
MSCS Shared:10.0.0.3
SQL Virtual:10.0.0.3
or do they need to be unique?
I have two Windows 2000 servers (Advance Edition) to form a Windows Cluster. I also install MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition on the cluster to form a MS SQL cluster. Now, I want to upgrade the hardware and OS (but keep on using SQL 2000), so I install Windows 2003 server Enterprise Edition on two new servers to form a new Windows Cluster. I am planing to install MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition on the new cluster, so the old SQL cluster and new SQL cluster are side by side. I would like to know how to setup a new SQL cluster (I know it has problem to rename SQL Cluster name, so how to fix this problem)? And how to transfer everything (such as system databases, users database, sql user account, password and maintenance plan jobs etc) from old SQL cluster to new SQL cluster? And how to switch over from old SQL cluster to new SQL cluster?
Thanks a lot !
According to microsoft, we can cluster SSIS service but it is NOT RECOMMENDED.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345193.aspx
Now this is the situation that I have where I need to understand how SSIS works?
Enviornment: Active Active cluster enviornment for SQL server with SSIS server installed as stand alone as default on both node.
Name: Node 1 Node 2
--------- -------------- ---------------------
Server name: Nd1 Nd2
SQL server name: cs-nd1in01 cs-nd2in02
SSIS server name: Nd1 Nd2
BTW, this is cosolidated enviornment so there are more than one application expected and resides on each instance of SQL server.
The question is around SSIS, what would be the best practice to develop SSIS package that can work with above envoinrment.
Secnario: What if my Nd1 fails. SQL server cs-nd1IN01 will be failover to Nd2 and it will be available. But How about SSIS packages? How that understands
to use Nd2 SSIS as Nd1 SSIS is not available. Is anyone has similar experience to setup SSIS in cluster envionrment but as non-cluster service?
Please help. Thanks in adavance.