One Node One Machine Cluster?

Hi,
I am in the process of building a SQL Server "farm," but having to tone down
the pace due to $$. I have just purchased a RAID1 (2 disc/10K rpm/146 GB)
Channel 0, RAID5 (3 disc/10K rpm/146 GB) Channel 1 server with 2 CPU's. This
summer, I plan to buy an identical machine. They will both run Win 2003 EE,
with SQL Server 2000 EE. Rather than install SQL Server locally on my
existing machine, is there a problem with installing MSCS and a virtual
server, even though I only have the one machine now. Of course, it won't
give me failover protection, but it would give me the configuration I want
when I get my second box. Does this make any sense? Any caveats or words of
wisdom?
PS. The servers will be accessed in OTLP mode by an ADO.NET app running on
Terminal Server (Win 2003), and BizTalk Server 2004 - also on a Win 2003 box.
Most of the ADO.NET traffic will occur during business hours, with BTS
getting busy after hours.
Thanks.
John
Hi
Why don't you rather build a single node cluster? Build a normal cluster
node, but not add another node. Once you have bought your other machine, add
it to the cluster.
Just be aware, it is very difficult to get the exact same hardware months
apart. If you are going to use clustering, make sure all the hardware is on
the Windows Hardware Compatibility List (HCL).
A cluster "on the cheap" will just cause you hassles later. I've seen enough
"lets do it with a s little as we can", and the cluster ends up with worse
uptime than a single machine.
Regards
Mike
"JT" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am in the process of building a SQL Server "farm," but having to tone down
> the pace due to $$. I have just purchased a RAID1 (2 disc/10K rpm/146 GB)
> Channel 0, RAID5 (3 disc/10K rpm/146 GB) Channel 1 server with 2 CPU's. This
> summer, I plan to buy an identical machine. They will both run Win 2003 EE,
> with SQL Server 2000 EE. Rather than install SQL Server locally on my
> existing machine, is there a problem with installing MSCS and a virtual
> server, even though I only have the one machine now. Of course, it won't
> give me failover protection, but it would give me the configuration I want
> when I get my second box. Does this make any sense? Any caveats or words of
> wisdom?
> PS. The servers will be accessed in OTLP mode by an ADO.NET app running on
> Terminal Server (Win 2003), and BizTalk Server 2004 - also on a Win 2003 box.
> Most of the ADO.NET traffic will occur during business hours, with BTS
> getting busy after hours.
> Thanks.
> --
> John

One node Cluster for SQL 2005

Hi anyone know if you can cluster sql on a one node cluster in Windows 2003 ?
Regards Craig
Yes you can. You can even cluster SQL 2005 in Virtual Server with two
nodes, but it takes a bit of work.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Craig Gibb" <Craig Gibb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4E75A9E-46BC-4DB4-9D22-B5862BBAFBF1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi anyone know if you can cluster sql on a one node cluster in Windows
> 2003 ?
> Regards Craig
>
|||Hi thanks for the info Geoff just now iam having a problem with DTC and
windows 2003 sp1 i thin there is COM + rollup package for the problem,
but i can′t find it anywhere KB 897667. MS support is closed here and i
would really like to install it this evening any ideas ?
Regards Craig
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Yes you can. You can even cluster SQL 2005 in Virtual Server with two
> nodes, but it takes a bit of work.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Craig Gibb" <Craig Gibb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E4E75A9E-46BC-4DB4-9D22-B5862BBAFBF1@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Here is what I usually have to do with DTC on a Windows 2003 Server.
HOWTO: Enable DTC Between Web Servers and SQL Servers Running Windows Server
2003
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555017/en-us
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Craig Gibb" <CraigGibb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:304D6E36-D457-4FDB-A46D-D3941CA3DF86@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi thanks for the info Geoff just now iam having a problem with DTC and
> windows 2003 sp1 i thin there is COM + rollup package for the problem,
> but i cant find it anywhere KB 897667. MS support is closed here and i
> would really like to install it this evening any ideas ?
> Regards Craig
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

on line idex rebuild

Hi

I am having sql server 2000 cluster and doing index rebuild every week

Now i am moving to SQL server 2005

Should i be going for online index rebuild?

what is the frequency i should be following?

Please advise

Thanks in advance

Hi,

You may go for online index rebuilding but before refer Index Rebuilding carefully ,some excerpts here from BOL:

---

Online Index Operations

When rebuilding an index and the ONLINE option is set to ON, the underlying objects, the tables and associated indexes, are available for queries and data modification. Exclusive table locks are held only for a very short amount of time during the alteration process.

Reorganizing an index is always performed online. The process does not hold locks long term and, therefore, does not block queries or updates that are running.

You can perform concurrent online index operations on the same table only when doing the following:

Creating multiple nonclustered indexes.

Reorganizing different indexes on the same table.

Reorganizing different indexes while rebuilding nonoverlapping indexes on the same table.

sql

On 2003 cluster (SQL 2000) connection pooling causes crash

For performance reasons we have (successfully) used pooling in our apps and
services on almost one hundred installations, NT 4.0 to 2000 servers (SQL
7.0 - 8.0), NT 4.0 to XP workstations without a problem in any combination.
Now with 5.2 (2003) server a local client is unable to connect and crashes
within the SQLDriverConnect call (SQLConnect as well). Does not return at
all.
When the same runs on any other client (4.0, 2000, XP), everything is OK.
The problem comes and goes with SQL_ATTR_CONNECTION_POOLING
100% sure the bug is not in our code - the pure MS-supplied code as shown in
Q164221 crashes precisely the same way.
When SQLSetEnvAttr(...SQL_ATTR_CONNECTION_POOLING...) is not used, it's ok,
BUT:
To quit using benefits of pooling is a solution with severe impact on
performance.
Any hint?
TIA
Jaroslav Pivonka
mailto:jpivonka@.centrum.cz
// Windows Server 2003, 2 in a cluster, SQL Server 2000 EE SP4 (8.00.2039)
Hi
I am assuming that your are not using AWE memory, as you should apply hotfix
2040 for SQL Server SP4
(http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;899761)
As to the connection pooling, check the versions of the ODBC drivers between
your various platforms. You will notice Windows 2003 has the most recent
one.
It may be a bug in the driver, or it may be that the feature is not working
anymore.
Do you have the same problem with Windows XP SP2 or Windows 2003 SP1?
If so, I would open a case with Microsoft Support Services.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Jaroslav" <Jaroslav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D39DE4D-FA1C-4A8B-A4D7-CBFCBB60D29A@.microsoft.com...
> For performance reasons we have (successfully) used pooling in our apps
> and
> services on almost one hundred installations, NT 4.0 to 2000 servers (SQL
> 7.0 - 8.0), NT 4.0 to XP workstations without a problem in any
> combination.
> Now with 5.2 (2003) server a local client is unable to connect and crashes
> within the SQLDriverConnect call (SQLConnect as well). Does not return at
> all.
> When the same runs on any other client (4.0, 2000, XP), everything is OK.
> The problem comes and goes with SQL_ATTR_CONNECTION_POOLING
> 100% sure the bug is not in our code - the pure MS-supplied code as shown
> in
> Q164221 crashes precisely the same way.
> When SQLSetEnvAttr(...SQL_ATTR_CONNECTION_POOLING...) is not used, it's
> ok,
> BUT:
> To quit using benefits of pooling is a solution with severe impact on
> performance.
> Any hint?
> TIA
> Jaroslav Pivonka
> mailto:jpivonka@.centrum.cz
> // Windows Server 2003, 2 in a cluster, SQL Server 2000 EE SP4 (8.00.2039)
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> I am assuming that your are not using AWE memory, as you should apply hotfix
> 2040 for SQL Server SP4
> (http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;899761)
Negative. 2GB each server.
Moreover it seems to be an ODBC problem, not server.

> As to the connection pooling, check the versions of the ODBC drivers between
> your various platforms. You will notice Windows 2003 has the most recent
> one.
> It may be a bug in the driver, or it may be that the feature is not working
> anymore.
Hopefully the first is true and somebody will fix it soon.
So far we have put a switch outside, enabling us not to use pooling (default
is yes), into a couple of generic services running on the cluster so we can
leave all but two new systems as they were, and on the new installations
we'll keep waiting until a patch comes.

> Do you have the same problem with Windows XP SP2 or Windows 2003 SP1?
Up to XP SP2 using MDAC 2.8 SP1 everything works fine.
The problem came with Windows 2003 Server SP1 having MDAC 2.8. SP2

> If so, I would open a case with Microsoft Support Services.
Please try to check it. I have proven that freshly installed systems
(nothing but Win2003 SP1 w MDAC 2.8 SP2, SQL 2000 EE (8.00.2039)) fail to run
locally even the sample code shown in Q164221 (MS only, not a line of ours).
Remote clients (pre-2003) are ok.
Thanks
Jaroslav Pivonka
sql

Old SQL Cluster to Join a New Domain?

Hi. In general terms, what would be the steps to have my
SQL2000 (on W2K OS) 2 node-clusters join a new domain?
They are member servers authenticating with a W2K DC on
their subnet, but we would like to install W2003 on that
DC (bare-metal NO upgrade, due to past history of AD
replication issues on that W2K DC. It's now the only DC
on it's own subnet, with very old AD info it. We figure
a clean install of W2003 with new clean domain would be
better).
Thanks.
Last time I did this, I just went into Windows, ignored the message that
popped up, and changed the domain name for each machine. (I stopped the
entire cluster first.)
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
|||Look at the following article:
HOW TO: Change Domains for a SQL Server 2000 Failover Cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319016
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.