SQL Server Performance

4 node active/active cluster

Discussion in 'SQL Server 2005 Clustering' started by california6, Apr 30, 2008.

  1. california6 New Member

    I am in a midst of consolidating all our SQL Servers and i was looking what's the best Clustering option to go with. Any suggestions would be greatly apprecaited.
    Option 1:
    N+1 Would it be better to use a 4 node active/active cluster and keep the fifth node as passive. Is this recommended?
    Option 2:
    Multiple instances: Or use all 4 nodes as active/active multiple instance cluster where each node is dependent on each other for failure?
    I want both high availability and high performance for these databases. The database environment going to be SQL 2005-64 bit.
    Thanks,
  2. MohammedU New Member

  3. california6 New Member

    Thanks for the answer MohammedU.
    I was looking into configuring N+1 (4 Active nodes with 1 passive node stand by) Is this possible? If yes, is there some documentation as to how we implement this?
    Additionally on a 4-active node - will i be using 4 different virtual names for these servers? dont know, how reliable this is. But read some article which was talking about performance degrade when using N+1. Is that true?
    any other suggestions?
    Thanks again,
  4. satya Moderator

Share This Page