whats the difference between a active/active & a active/passive cluster?
tony
active/active or active/passive?
I assume that if there are 2 nodes in the cluster, and if
both cluster nodes are running sqlserver services then it
is active/active. If sqlservices is stopped on one of
them and starts only on failover, then its active/passive.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Geoff N. Hiten
applies. This referred to a peculiarity of the SQL 7.0 clustered
environment. Now it is either a Single-instance or a Multi-instance SQL
cluster. You can have up to sixteen instances on a SQL cluster with SQL
2000. Determining which is pretty simple. Either you have one instance of
SQL installed on your cluster of more than one installed. Check the Cluster
Administrator tool to find out how your system is configured.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"tony" <ind...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:09c601c33043$32b80a50$a001...@phx.gbl...
cjones
active/passive clustering. While we are working with
instances of SQL in 2000, active/active refers rather to
the state of the clustered environment itself.
Active/Active is defined as having two or more nodes
constantly available. For instance, I wish to run two
instances of SQL server 2000 at the same time, one
instance on a single clustered node, the second instance
on a second clustered node. In this case both nodes are
actively servicing SQL server.
Active/Passive refers to a clustered environment in which
you desire the SQL server services to fail over to the
passive node when the active node fails for any reason.
In the active/active cluster design, if one node fails the
other has to carry the weight of both SQL server instances
until the failure can be corrected.
When choosing this design for your cluster remember to
take this extra load into account, otherwise your SQL
services could be severely slowed while the second node is
offline.
cjones
DBA \ IS Admin
___________________________________________________________
>.
>
tony
>.
>
Michael Hotek
instance cluster is one which has 1 instance of SQL Server installed. A
multi-instance cluster is one where you have more than one instance
installed. Where the services are physically running is irrelevant, because
no piece of hardware owns a SQL Server instance. The cluster is what owns
the SQL Server instance(s).
If you install 2 instances of SQL Server on a cluster, it is a
multi-instance cluster. If you go into Cluster Administrator and determine
that you want to run each installed instance on a different SQL Server, it
is STILL a multi-instance cluster. If you run both instances on a single
physical machine, it is STILL a multi-instance cluster.
As was stated above, the active/active & active/passive terminology is a
holdover from the peculiar way SQL Server 7.0 clustering worked. It also
gets rid of a really bad piece of terminology. That terminology was used to
refer to how you architected (configured) your cluster. If you stay with
that terminology, then you are going to have to make sure all of your
documentation is at hand, because every time you shift resources, you have
just invalidated every piece of documentation you have, because with a
simple mouse click, an "active/active" cluster just became an
"active/passive" cluster. With a click of a mouse, that "active/passive"
cluster just became an "active/active" cluster. The state of where services
are running is transient in nature and also an absolute irrelevancy to
anything accessing your data.
Besides that, let me hand you an 8 node Windows 2003 cluster. Describe THAT
in terms of that "active/passive" terminology without getting everyone
confused in the process for something that is irrelevant anyway. A SQL
Server is a SQL Server is a SQL Server. The physical hardware it is running
on is irrelevant.
With SQL Server 2000, while it carries the same name, it really is a
completely different feature. Besides being completely rewritten, it also
makes MANY things transparent. If you step outside the cluster in a 7.0
environment, you can connect to a SQL Server in a way such that you can
determine that it is in fact on a cluster. In a SQL Server 2000
installation, you have absolutely no clue the SQL Server is running on a
cluster unless you are making an API call or you are inside Cluster
Administrator. You can go directly to one of the physical machines in the
cluster and the SQL Server would yield no visible information that it was
installed on a cluster.
--
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
cjones
but references the old system terminology. It still makes
sense to me that in Tony's case he is looking for a
failover device or a consistantly active device.
In Win 2000 clustering it is possible to have just a
failover device, and you can run two or more nodes active
at one time. Disragarding known terminology and not
providing an adequate alternative is not acceptable in my
opinion.
Failover makes sence and works for me. Avtive / Passive
makes sense and is used in every book I have looked at.
In addition it costs twice as much to run with all your
nodes active (2 node cluster), according to microsofts
licensing system. If I have to pay twice as much for my
active active cluster then I want to have a name for it.
:)
Cjones
DBA \ IS Admin
>.
>
Geoff N. Hiten
in the wrong manner. It just confuses everyone. Active/Passive and
Active/Active do not apply to SQL 2000.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"cjones" <cjo...@sierrapine.com> wrote in message
news:012d01c331c7$73bcecc0$a301...@phx.gbl...
cjones
apply to the clutered environment. One machine can be
passive and the other active. If you only have one SQL
server service running with failover capabilities then it
is in active/passive mode.
Sure SQL 2000 allows multiple instances to run on either
one or more cluster nodes at a time, but that does not
negate that fact that you must still pay for every active
node that you intend to have SQL server running on does it?
If anyone seems to be using the terminology wrong it would
be the two of you. Are you implying that because you can
create up to 16 instances of SQL within my cluster that
active active does not apply. How is that? If even if I
create all 16 instances on my cluster environment do I no
longer have the ability to fail over to an inactive node
when needed?
In addition, if I am running a two node cluster and I want
to configure for active/passive (fail over) then I only
need to pay for licensing on the first node. If I
configure active/active then I need to pay for licensing
on both nodes. Microsoft clearly distingushes the
difference between the two and clearly sees them as still
being value terminology. The fact that you are telling
people that they can just running SQL 2000 and not worry
about active/active or active/passive implies that you do
not understand what you are talking about.
<a
href="http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/SQL2KLic.doc">S
QL2KLic.doc</a>
Direct from Microsoft's licensing dept: Created (Friday,
May 30, 2003 4:59:00 PM)
BEGIN Qoute:
___________________________________________________________
CLUSTERING
One of the features offered by SQL Server Enterprise
Edition is fail-over support when servers are used in a
clustered environment. Two or more servers, each running
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition, can be configured such
that if one server fails, its processing will be picked-
up, recovered and continued by the other. This can be
accomplished utilizing one of two configurations, known as
Active-Active or Active-Passive.
Active/Active failover - In Active/Active fail-over
clustering, two servers (sharing a common disc array) are
each running one or more distinct SQL Server databases or
SQL Server-based applications. In addition, they are
configured such that if one fails, the database(s) or
application(s) it is running will be continued seamlessly
by the other. In active-active failover, both machines
need to be fully licensed, and can be licensed using per-
seat or per-processor licensing.
Active/Passive failover - In Active/Passive fail-over
clustering, only one server is actively running one or
more SQL Server databases or SQL Server-based applications
at any one time. The other acts as a backup server, and is
configured such that if the first server fails, the
database(s) or application(s) it is running will be
continued seamlessly by the other. In this scenario, only
the active machine must be licensed. Disaster recovery
servers are not covered by this exception.
___________________________________________________________
END Qoute
Please, by all means correct me if I am wrong, I would
rather not pay the $10,000 for the extra node to be active.
cjones
DBA \ IS Admin
>.
>
Paul Chan
the sales said If you're running Active/Active mode, then you have to
purchase TWO SQL server licenses. But you're running Active/Passive mode,
then one license is sufficent enough. Based on the conversation, I assumed
the terminology (Active/Active and Active/Passive) is still valid under SQL
2000 Enterprise Edition.
If I am wrong please correct me.
Paul Chan
"cjones" <cjo...@sierrapine.com> wrote in message
news:009801c331da$a686ceb0$a601...@phx.gbl...
Michael Hotek
do NOT license a machine with SQL Server 2000. You license instances of SQL
Server 2000. It doesn't matter how many machines you have in a cluster, you
are still licensing only the SQL Server instances you are running.
Irregardless of where they are physically running.
Michael Hotek
you call that Active/Passive as well? 2 minutes after you call it
Active/Passive, I walk into your server room, click Move Group, and move 8
of the instances to the other machine. Is that Active/Passive still? I
then move all 8 instance back to the first machine. Is that Active/Passive
still?
In all of that, I've changed absolutely nothing whatsoever about SQL Server.
All 16 still have the same name. All 16 still have the same IPs. All 16
are still connected to exactly the same way. You still require 16 licenses
for SQL Server 2000. All 16 contain exactly the same information. All 16
are still owned BY THE CLUSTER, and NOT by an individual piece of hardware.
Besides that, since we're talking about absurd terminology that no longer
applies to SQL Server 2000, just what would you call it when I configure a
single ES7000 where I partition 4 processors into one "machine", 4
processors into another "machine", cluster them together and install
multiple instances of SQL Server on that ES7000?
Michael Hotek
active/active or active/passive, it is outdated and inaccurate. All of the
material coming out of Microsoft that I've seen from the last couple of
years does NOT use that terminology. It is absolutely, 100% confusing, and
does not have any relation whatsoever to the real world or the way you
manage a SQL Server 2000 instance.
Say I'm running Windows 2000 Advanced Server with 2 pieces of physical
hardware clustered together and I install 2 instances of SQL Server 2000
into that cluster. Just what would you call that? It's called a
multi-instance cluster. Period. End of story. You buy licenses for 2
instances of SQL Server 2000. Period. End of story.
Say I'm running Windows 2003 Data Center Edition with 8 pieces of physical
hardware clustered together and I install 2 instances of SQL Server 2000
into that cluster. Just what would you call that? It's called a
multi-instance cluster. Period. End of story. You buy licenses for 2
instances of SQL Server 2000. Period. End of story.
It does not matter on which piece of physical hardware a service is running.
It only depends on the number of SQL Servers that you are running on a
particular hardware resource.
I have 23 slide decks, a 1 day seminar, a 3 day hands on class, and several
whitepapers and reference documents, all from Microsoft and not a single one
of them uses SQL Server 7.0 terminology to refer to SQL Server 2000
features. AND I'll even refer you to the clustering whitepaper published
where it states:
"Important An instance of SQL Server 2000 cannot be run on a SQL Server 6.5
or SQL Server 7.0 cluster.
With instances, come two new concepts for failover clustering:
a.. Single instance cluster: replaces an active/passive cluster. A single
instance cluster means there is one SQL Server 2000 virtual server
installed.
b.. Multiple instance cluster: replaces an active/active cluster. A
multiple instance cluster is one in which there is more than one SQL Server
2000 virtual server installed. Because of the way the implementation of
clustering is different with SQL Server 2000, using the active/active
terminology does not really apply. "
Paul Chan
then.
Paul
"Michael Hotek" <mho...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ev6UprlN...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
cjones
licensing agreement once again and found this little
tidbit.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/SQL2KLic.doc
Begin Quote:
___________________________________________________________
MULTIPLE INSTANCES
SQL Server 2000 includes a multi-instancing feature which
allows customers to install SQL Server more than once on a
server. This is used in hosting and multi-application
environments, for example. Customers using SQL Server
Standard Edition must fully license each instance server
(whether in per-seat or per-processor mode). Customers
using SQL Server Enterprise Edition can install an
unlimited number of instances on each machine without
requiring any additional licensing.
___________________________________________________________
End Quote:
This was just one or two lines below that statement that I
quoted prior to this reply. So my sales rep is going to
get creamed next time I chat with them, but it really is
my fault for not looking into this correctly.
My apologies to Geoff and Michael for not considering your
experience. I am fairly new to the clustering environment
although I have been a DBA for many years now.
Piece of advice though, send me a quote, as you just did
Micheal, to recieve this apology sooner. It is very tough
to get good information out there today that you can
trust. Until proof can be brought to the table anal
people like me will seriously doubt things outside their
experiences.
cjones
DBA \IS Admin
>.
>
Michael Hotek
licensing. It has to do with the perspective with which you approach a SQL
Server cluster. There was one way to do this, explained by the terminology
in use, in SQL Server 7.0. SQL Server 2000 has some VERY fundamental and
VERY wide reaching architectural changes which completely invalidate the
terminology used in SQL Server 7.0. A SQL Server 2000 cluster does not
operate in any manner, from an architectural level, that is even
recognizable in a SQL Server 7.0 perspective. It isn't exactly easy to
explain, but it is extremely fundamental to understanding clustering in SQL
Server 2000.