Showing posts with label clustering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clustering. Show all posts

Sunday, March 25, 2012

BEST RECOMMENDATION FOR A TESTING SCENARIO

guys:
I would like to have your best advise.
We am planning to install Passive/Active SQL server Clustering in the
production environment that includes two identical Dell PowerEdge 6650 dual
processor servers with a External Disk Storage PoweVault 220S. We have
bought two copies of Windows 2003 enterprise (for each one of the servers)
and one only copy of SQL Server 200 enterprise Edition licensed per
processor (I was told that only one copy of this software ins needed in an
Active/Passive mode)
On the other hand, since the configuration above would be in production at
all times, we would like to have similar scenario for development and
testing purposes.I was advised to replicate the same hardware and software
scenario described above, however, as you can see, it would be a costly
endeavor. Each Dell 6650 costs approximately $20,000 (two processors, 8 GB
RAM, 2 MB cache) the External Raid $8,000, the Windows 2003 Enterprise
server software $3,000 (for the two servers), and the SQL Server 200
enterprise software about $24,000 (license for two processor, for just one
server)
Could you please if you see any issue in the production scenario? Are we Ok
using only one copy of SQL server there?
Secondly, do we have any other choice for a development and testing
scenario? Most people recommend that a development and testing scenario
would be, if not identical, at least very similar to the production
scenario. I was planning to get those Dell 6650 server but with a single
processor, only 1 GB of RAM, and 1 MB cache (or even 512 KB). In terms of
software I was also told that one economical approach would be to acquire
the MSDN Universal subscription that allows use software for testing
(Windows and SQL server)
Thirdly, do you have any other (most economical recommendation in terms of
hardware and software for our development and testing scenario? How critical
is that this has to be very similar (or identical) to the production
scenario?
Thanks for all your answers
White
First off, what you are implementing is a single instance cluster, not an
active/passive cluster. It may just look like a term, but there is a very
dramatic difference between the two.
As for licensing SQL Server in a cluster, you have exactly what you need.
The easiest way to tally up licensing for a cluster is to ask how many SQL
Servers you can connect to from an application. In your case, it would be
1.
For the dev/testing environments, you do not need to purchase the Enterprise
Edition of SQL Server. You can use the Developer Edition which gives you
the full functionality of Enterprise Edition without all of the cost and
hardware requirements. This even allows you to simulate a cluster, you just
don't get full clustering functionality. But, you do NOT need to stuff
clusters into your dev/test environments. There is no case that I'm aware
of where a clustered SQL Server behaves differently with respect to an
application than a standalone SQL Server.
My recommendation would be to purchase a Dell 6650 with the external RAID
array. Depending on your testing and development scenario, you can very
easily place BOTH dev and test on the same machine in different SQL Server
instances without collisions. The only real reason to have completely
different systems for the two would be if you are doing a lot of very heavy
performance related work. If not, you can get away with a single machine
with external array + Windows 2003 Server + SQL Server 2000 Developer
Edition.
I can send you my address so you can send a check for the ~$54,000 that I
just saved you.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com

Monday, March 19, 2012

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>
|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
ScottHi
If your comms are reliable and have the capacity and response times then
maintaining the single cluster will be the simplest solutions.
Having an internet/intranet based application would be an alternative,
similar a citrix type solution may be another option to consider.
John
"Scott McDonald" wrote:

> We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphi
a
> and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
> Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fib
re
> line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
> would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
> off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it syn
c
> with the ones here?
> Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficien
t
> etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
> concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that on
ce
> we get this first question decided on.
> Thanks!
> Scott
>
>|||this might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Best Practice Question (clustering and remote locations access)

We have a SQL server here in Portland, we have a new office in Philadelphia
and we need to have both locations working off the same live data.
Regardless we will be clustering the SQL server here, but if we have a fibre
line (either will be DS3 45MB or OC3 155MB) connecting the two sites what
would be the best thing to do, have just the cluster here and phili works
off of that, or add another SQL server to the phili office and have it sync
with the ones here?
Just wondering pros and cons of both, what would be faster & more efficient
etc and wanted to get the opinions of some folks here. I'm not real
concerned about redundancy or uptime at this point, we will tackle that once
we get this first question decided on.
Thanks!
Scottthis might be a situation in which you would consider Merge Replication.
Not sure, it's a tough question.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Best Damn Clustering Class...Period!

I had the opportunity to attend a Windows 2003 Clustering Class offered by
Rod (and Russ) in NYC. In my eleven years of IT, I have attended 8 or so
classes. This was the best class I have ever attended - period! The way
that Rod and Russ have designed this course, I wish MSL (Microsoft Learning)
would adopt that format. It just flowed perfectly. It also gave you the
choice of which order you wanted to do the labs in, without affecting the
desired outcomes. They have put a lot of work into making the one of the
best classes ever.
My only regret is that I could never deliver this courseware to students to
allow them to have the same experience I had since it is not for resale. You
can only take it with Rod or Russ, but that is so worth it. The only other
courseware to come close to this level of completeness was the 827 and 828
kits. I love those classes, too!
Anyway, if you need a vacation and want to take the best damn class you will
ever take, you must take Rod and Russ' class.
(Now let me tell you how much I really liked it!)
Jim Thyne - MCT
Thanks Jim,
It was a pleasure to have you in class. ClusterHelp.com thanks you!
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"Jim Thyne" <jthyne@.thlee.com> wrote in message
news:OD7kQBi6GHA.940@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I had the opportunity to attend a Windows 2003 Clustering Class offered by
>Rod (and Russ) in NYC. In my eleven years of IT, I have attended 8 or so
>classes. This was the best class I have ever attended - period! The way
>that Rod and Russ have designed this course, I wish MSL (Microsoft
>Learning) would adopt that format. It just flowed perfectly. It also gave
>you the choice of which order you wanted to do the labs in, without
>affecting the desired outcomes. They have put a lot of work into making
>the one of the best classes ever.
> My only regret is that I could never deliver this courseware to students
> to allow them to have the same experience I had since it is not for
> resale. You can only take it with Rod or Russ, but that is so worth it.
> The only other courseware to come close to this level of completeness was
> the 827 and 828 kits. I love those classes, too!
> Anyway, if you need a vacation and want to take the best damn class you
> will ever take, you must take Rod and Russ' class.
> (Now let me tell you how much I really liked it!)
>
> Jim Thyne - MCT
>
|||Can't wait till you come to London :-)
Mark Fugatt
Premier Field Engineering
Microsoft
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:e8ypAzj6GHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Jim,
> It was a pleasure to have you in class. ClusterHelp.com thanks you!
> Cheers,
> Rodney R. Fournier
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
>
> "Jim Thyne" <jthyne@.thlee.com> wrote in message
> news:OD7kQBi6GHA.940@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Mark Fugatt [MSFT]" <markfu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eTjC5Qm6GHA.4404@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Can't wait till you come to London :-)
> --
> Mark Fugatt
> Premier Field Engineering
> Microsoft
Tentative date is set of March 6-9th. Details to follow.
|||how about in Asia-Pacific Region?
"Russ Kaufmann (MVP)" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:OqWuxaq6GHA.1560@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Mark Fugatt [MSFT]" <markfu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eTjC5Qm6GHA.4404@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Tentative date is set of March 6-9th. Details to follow.
>
|||"Louie Lubangco" <llubangco@.iti-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:ex%23VgB36GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> how about in Asia-Pacific Region?
>
Sorry, but we have no plans at this time for the year 2006 or 2007.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Nov 14th
NYC starting Dec 4th.
|||Find at least 9 more people, and I will come to Japan or Singapore in a
heartbeat.
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"Louie Lubangco" <llubangco@.iti-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:ex%23VgB36GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> how about in Asia-Pacific Region?
> "Russ Kaufmann (MVP)" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
> news:OqWuxaq6GHA.1560@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||how about PF?
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:%23OeoZy86GHA.4996@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Find at least 9 more people, and I will come to Japan or Singapore in a
> heartbeat.
> Cheers,
> Rodney R. Fournier
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
>
> "Louie Lubangco" <llubangco@.iti-consulting.com> wrote in message
> news:ex%23VgB36GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
|||MABUHAY Louie
Congratulations to ClusterHelp.com. - Rod and Russ. Maybe you can come up
with a business plan to have partners to deliver the training for you in Asia
Pacific ;) ... or franchise, maybe
MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS:SQL Server 2005
"Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
them"
"Louie Lubangco" wrote:

> how about PF?
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:%23OeoZy86GHA.4996@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||"bass_player" <bassplayer@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B9DEB1FE-0E7D-4A76-A616-589C4BFB707D@.microsoft.com...
> MABUHAY Louie
> Congratulations to ClusterHelp.com. - Rod and Russ. Maybe you can come
> up
> with a business plan to have partners to deliver the training for you in
> Asia
> Pacific ;) ... or franchise, maybe
Actually, we are talking about that. Our UK class will be a Train the
Trainer class for anyone that wants to train in Europe using our materials
and meets our standards.
We would love to do the same thing in Sinapore for Asia-Pacific market.
However, we don't have any contacts there to arrange a class and market in
the area.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Nov 14th
NYC starting Dec 4th.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Beginner question.

Clustering is for availability or for manage a very large database.
(10.20.30...TB)
Thanks
For High Availability. Along with Microsoft tested/certified hardware and
documented processes/procedures.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"ReTF" <re.tf@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uGzPoR0FHA.2312@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Clustering is for availability or for manage a very large database.
> (10.20.30...TB)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
|||For availability (at least as far as Microsoft Cluster Server is concerned).
Linchi
"ReTF" <re.tf@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uGzPoR0FHA.2312@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Clustering is for availability or for manage a very large database.
> (10.20.30...TB)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>