SQL Server Forums
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
 
Register Now and get your question answered!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 SQL Server 2000 Forums
 SQL Server Administration (2000)
 SQL Clustering
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Jay1Jay
Yak Posting Veteran

USA
50 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  11:56:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm new to SQL and company has asked me to look into SQL clustering as well as instances. We are basically consolidating SQL Servers into one big cluster SQL server. I want to know what is the take of some people using this type of enviorment. Basically I have about 10 different applications whose database will reside in this enviroment. Most of the application require one login but there are some which require regular users. I guess in that case I would use instances. I just wanted to find out the pros and cons for this type of enivorment. Any help would be appreicated...

thanks,

Jay

nr
SQLTeam MVY

United Kingdom
12543 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  12:02:12  Show Profile  Visit nr's Homepage  Reply with Quote
What do you expect to get out of clustering and separate instances?
i.e. what are the business requirements for the system that are driving this?

==========================================
Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.
DTS can be used in a similar way.
Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy.
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36613 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  13:04:55  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Clustering is used for high availability. Do you have high availability requirements?

Using multiple instances is not used for different kinds of logins. You can achieve that in one instance.

Tara
Go to Top of Page

Jay1Jay
Yak Posting Veteran

USA
50 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  13:37:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, currently we have appox 10 applications running on 10 different database server, so I would combine all the databases into one server and we can save SQL licensing as well as hardware cost. As far as clustering we don't want any downtime for these apps.

The business requirments are cost savings....

quote:
Originally posted by nr

What do you expect to get out of clustering and separate instances?
i.e. what are the business requirements for the system that are driving this?

==========================================
Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.
DTS can be used in a similar way.
Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy.

Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36613 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  13:39:09  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
You still have to purchase licenses for each instance if you are running Standard Edition. Only Enterprise Edition allows you to license the server and not each license. Which edition are you running?

BTW, clustering can be quite expensive especially if you go with a very highly available solution.

Tara
Go to Top of Page

MuadDBA
Aged Yak Warrior

USA
628 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  14:19:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok, comparative cost, let's say you have 10 DB servers with databases on them, each serving say, 100 clients. You have 10 SQL Server Licenses and 1000 CALs. Thankfully, the CALs are portable.

If you move to a clustered envorinment, running Enterprise edition, with 2 nodes, in an active/passive config, you need only one license for SQL Enterprise edition, and you use the existing CALs (so no need for per-processor licensing, which can get real damn expensive).

It should be much cheaper from a licensing and upkeep standpoint (you're upkeeping 2 servers instead of 10). Your hardware might initially cost more, because you have to get 2 servers powerful enough to handle what 10 servers were before, and if you weren't running some sort of SAN, this would be a great time for it.

It's all going to depend on what your current licensing structure is and how many users you have, etc etc. Typically you don't save money by going to EE, but it's possible.
Go to Top of Page

MichaelP
Jedi Yak

USA
2489 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  14:39:14  Show Profile  Visit MichaelP's Homepage  Reply with Quote
For a low cost high performance shared storage device for your cluster, I'd reccomend the EMC CX300. You can pay a bit extra and get Dell to setup the EMC box, the cluster, and SQL Server. If you've never done clustering, this might be the way to go.

Be sure to get a fast disk subsystem and LOTS of RAM to handle 10 different databases.

Michael

<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda>
Go to Top of Page

MuadDBA
Aged Yak Warrior

USA
628 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  16:28:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now this is just hearsay, mind you, but I have never heard of EMC offering a low-cost storage solution for anything. Here we use Compaq EVA SAN solutions, because of the difference in pricing and ease of setup.
Go to Top of Page

MichaelP
Jedi Yak

USA
2489 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  16:39:50  Show Profile  Visit MichaelP's Homepage  Reply with Quote
A EMC CX300 solution can be had for around 20-30K installed depending on how much space / what type of disks you get.

Is the EVA SCSI attached storage? The EMC box is 2Gbps fibre attached. It has the controllers in the box, so that it can handle the cache in a clustered environment. We had problems with a SCSI attached system where the cache on the controllers was not able to be used in a cluster environment.

Michael

<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda>
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36613 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2004 :  16:42:07  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The EVA is fibre attached. We use the EVA in both clustered and non-clustered environments.

Tara
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000