SQL Server Performance

new sql2000+2005 cluster design

Discussion in 'SQL Server Clustering' started by junsql, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. junsql New Member

    Hi,I need assistance in design the cluster; I've around 16 sql 2000 server and 1 sql2005 server. There are around total of 100 DB in these servers. For a new design I though as the follows2 act/act sql server 20002 act/act sql server 2005 All connected to SAN storageIs this design look ok and Can I install more than 2 instances on Act/act cluster. If yes, could you elaborate more on this point
  2. satya Moderator

    Before we go into suggestion I need clarification on few points below:
    Are you going to have seperate hardware for these Active/Active configuration?
    What is the timescale of upgrading SQL 2000 to 2005?
    Do you really need Active/Active setup of cluster?
    What is your criteria in having cluster, is it performance or scalability?
  3. junsql New Member

    Are you going to have seperate hardware for these Active/Active configuration? Do you mean by seperate h/w as the server then yes, I will have 2 sql server. totaly I will have 4 server - 2 for sql 2000 and 2 for sql2005
    What is the timescale of upgrading SQL 2000 to 2005? it depend on application gurdians, once the env. is ready some application's DB will be migrated to sql2005 otherwise it will be kept in sql2000 env.
    Do you really need Active/Active setup of cluster? the main reason to kepe a/a env. is to keep all 17 serevers DB after cosolidating into these 2 servers since both server will work independtly from each other unless there is fail over.
    is your criteria in having cluster, is it performance or scalability? I've asked to build a cenralize high availale sql env .
  4. satya Moderator

    Appreciate your clarification, then you need to go with (2+2) configuration that is 2 active & 2 passive, this is for failover purpose say one instance is failed over then the other should provide high availability too.
    If not you could go with 2 active and 1 passive node, but this will have problem in providing scalalbility when 2 active instance has any issues in failover.
  5. junsql New Member

    thanks for replying, is that mean that I will have 4 servers for sql2000 and anther 4 for sql2005. I've limited budget. Is there any issues with haveing a/a env (total of 2 serever) for sql2000 and is there any limitaion on # of DB inside a inatnace here is what I though
    SQl 2000 env
    node 1 active node 2 active
    sql 2005 env
    node 3 active node 4 active thanks for ur assistance.
    pl. for ur assistance as I'm new in sql env.
  6. satya Moderator

    How about failover node?
    You need to mention the passive node in this case where you must need when you have any issues on the active nodes.
  7. junsql New Member

    Hi,As I understood a/a is 2 a/p node1 node2 inst1 active Passive inst2 passive aciveso if node1 faile node1 node2inst1 - active inst2 - active
  8. satya Moderator

    Yes thats true in having 2 active nodes here, but always think about 1 passive node that is required in order to reduce single point of failure.
  9. junsql New Member

    hi, thanks for ur replys
    could you pl. clarify on
    • how many inst. can i have on 1 server.
    • how many db can be on i inst.
    thanks
    thanks

Share This Page