Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
kenchee
Starting Member
49 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-10-15 : 18:11:42
|
| Hi All, We currently have a 3 node active/active/passive SQL 2005 cluster. All of them are on a HP DL360 G5 with 2 X 2.66GHz E5430 Xeon with 16Gb of RAM (PC2-5300) on each of the nodes. We are planing to add another 2 nodes into this cluster, however DL360 G5 are no longer available so we will have to use the next closes which is the HP DL360 G6 with the below specs extracted from the HP website. 2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Xeon, 16Gb of RAM (DDR3 Registered (RDIMM)). We are hoping that we are still able to use the same identical HBA on the two new nodes. Can anyone give me some feedback if this will work or has something similar setup on their end. I've heard that SQL clustering on different hardware can be a nightmare at times. ThanksRegardsKen |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
|
|
kenchee
Starting Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 2009-10-15 : 18:34:16
|
| Hi tkizer, Thanks for the reply. What are the stability issues that I might encounter if I were to go down this approach? Reason for a adding two more nodes is because a new system that we have purchased needs to have a specific sql server collation (not only database collation) for their application to work and our current sql instances on the cluster is on a different collation. Secondly, we want to isolate this application's database as the vendor requires (hardcoded) the sa user account to upgrade their db and our current sql instances have other databases in them and I don't feel comfortable for the upgrade program to use the sa account, and finally the application does not support non-default instance name and our instances in the cluster are all named instance. If I have it my way, this application will not even get approved however my hands are tied.RegardsKen |
 |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2009-10-15 : 19:42:05
|
| But why not just create a new 2-node cluster rather than adding more nodes to the existing cluster? What benefit is a 5-node cluster giving you that a 3-node cluster along with a 2-node cluster doesn't give you?Cluster stability has to do with availability such as crashing, failovers, ...You really should reconsider doing this. Clustering is used for high availability reasons, which wouldn't exist in an unstable cluster.Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/Subscribe to my blog"Let's begin with the premise that everything you've done up until this point is wrong." |
|
|
|
kenchee
Starting Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 2009-10-15 : 20:08:39
|
| Hi tkizer, You are right, there's no reason why I can't just have a new 2-node cluster rather than a 5 node cluster. I just thought that if it's a 5 node cluster, I'll have two passive nodes to act as a failover instead of 1. But I would rather have stability with a 2-node cluster and a 3-node cluster than a 5-node cluster that has issues. Thanks for your input Tara.Regards,Ken |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL 2005 Clustering on different Hardware