April 16, 2009 at 6:41 am
Long story short, I have a crazy demanding client that wants to do a side by side install of 2005 (same version). aside from the obvious...You don't have the horsepower for this. Your not accomplishing what you think you are. he feels when we apply any service packs, hot fixes we will be able to test on one installation.
So my question:
Is this possible?
btw the way he wants them active/active clustered.
so it would break down like this.
two servers. active/active clustered.
side by side installations of 2005
multiple instances.
....God I hate my life. :crying:
April 19, 2009 at 2:02 pm
rholland82 (4/16/2009)
Long story short, I have a crazy demanding client that wants to do a side by side install of 2005 (same version). aside from the obvious...You don't have the horsepower for this. Your not accomplishing what you think you are. he feels when we apply any service packs, hot fixes we will be able to test on one installation.So my question:
Is this possible?
btw the way he wants them active/active clustered.
so it would break down like this.
two servers. active/active clustered.
side by side installations of 2005
multiple instances.
....God I hate my life. :crying:
So you have two physical servers; that will be clustered. So you will be running 2-Node Cluster with 2 Instances. In which case having Active-Active will not put as much pressure on your servers unless you have a failover. Many people do this to maximize the utilization of their servers. You will have each server act as active and passive for the other. The negative part of it is if one server does go down then you will have performance issues. Lets look at this example:
Server 1: Dual CPU (Duo Core, aka 4 Cores) with 4GB ram.
Server 2: Dual CPU (Duo Core, aka 4 Cores) with 4GM ram.
So in normal configuration where S1 (A) -> S2 (P) (Default) and S2 (A) -> S1 (P) (Named); your memory usage will be 1.7GB SQL and rest for OS and other supporting services.
In case you have a failover where S2 (A) -> S1 (P) (Named) failed over so you get S2 (P) <- S1 (A) (Named); you get two instances installed on the server; SQL server takes minimum of 1.7GB; so you have 3.4GB being used up by SQL Server leaving 600MB for OS. Which is acceptable; but if you have any other application running on server you will have page faults, increasing the usage of Page File thus having adverse affect on I/O for the queries.
Also the question of license comes into affect; if these servers are production having active/active instances means you need license for each install. Where as if they want to do patch testing for development/testing you can get the MS Developer edition (which is Enterprise edition without license for production use) to do your testing. I understand there are some special cases for Licensing if you have MSDN subscription or Enterprise level agreement with them but I am not sure how they work...
Thanks.
Mohit.
Mohit K. Gupta, MCITP: Database Administrator (2005), My Blog, Twitter: @SQLCAN[/url].
Microsoft FTE - SQL Server PFE
* Some time its the search that counts, not the finding...
* I didn't think so, but if I was wrong, I was wrong. I'd rather do something, and make a mistake than be frightened and be doing nothing. :smooooth:[/font]
April 19, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Multiple instances give you some memory issues are times. You have to really set the memory each instance will use, and as Mohit pointed out, failovers will affect things.
The side by side works, and SPs do apply to one instance and not the other for many things. However not all SQL systems are instance aware. SSIS, for example, is not. You get one install per server, and if you patch it, it's patched for both instances.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply