MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose

MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose

Post by Pete » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:30:13



Thanks for the response John!  Please bear with me as I
make sure I understand this correctly...

Initially (i.e. pre-failover) I think my configuration
looks something like this:

       Node1->SQLServer A (Active)  --> Partition X
       Node2->SQLServer B (Active)  --> Partition Y
       Node1->SQLServer B (Inactive)--> Partition X
       Node2->SQLServer A (Inactive)--> Partition Y

As you pointed out, when node2 fails the diagram would
look something like this

       Node1->SQLServer A (Active)--> Partition X
       Node1->SQLServer B (Active)--> Partition Y
and obviously
       Node2->SQLServer B (Failed)--> Partition Y
       Node2->SQLServer A (Failed)--> Partition Y

First, does a node correspond to a physical server? Also,
do these diagrams accurately reflect what's going on?

Thanks again,

Peter
_______________________________________________

Previous message:

Peter,

Kinda, sorta.  You missed one piece of the puzzle here.  
Let me redo the
diagram.  You have

|       Server A --> Partition X
|       Server B --> Partition Y
and the failure question implied
|       Server A --> Partition X
|       Server A --> Partition Y

When in reality it should look like this

       Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
       Node2->SQLServer B --> Partition Y

Now when node2 fails your diagram would look like this

       Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
       Node1->SQLServer B --> Partition Y

You will have two instances of SQL Server running on one
node.  The
instances of SQL Server are independent of the nodes, but
are not
independent of their data.

John Gose
MCDBA
Microsoft SQL Server Support

This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and
confers no rights

Are you secure? For information about the Microsoft
Strategic Technology
Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool
Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.

--------------------
| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message


| Subject: MSCS vs. Federated Database
| Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:51:58 -0800
| Lines: 14
|
| Another question about Clustering...
|
| Imagine I have the following configuration where Servers
| A and B are active/active members of a 2 server cluster
| and Partitions X and Y are separate partitions in a
| Federated Database:
|
|       Server A --> Partition X
|       Server B --> Partition Y
|
| If Server B fails, would A automatically take over the
| functionality for B by accessing both partitions so that
| users would still be able to access all data in the
| database?
|

.

 
 
 

MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose

Post by John Gose [M » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:25:25


Peter,

No problem.  I think you have it.  Yes, at least in the way I use it, a
"node" does represent a physical server.  Virtual SQL Servers are
independent of nodes.  You can only have an instance run on one node at a
time.

John Gose
MCDBA
Microsoft SQL Server Support

This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no rights

Are you secure? For information about the Microsoft Strategic Technology
Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.

--------------------
| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message


| Subject: MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose
| Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:30:13 -0800
| Lines: 99
|
<Snip of Header Stuff>
|
| Thanks for the response John!  Please bear with me as I
| make sure I understand this correctly...
|
| Initially (i.e. pre-failover) I think my configuration
| looks something like this:
|
|        Node1->SQLServer A (Active)  --> Partition X
|        Node2->SQLServer B (Active)  --> Partition Y
|        Node1->SQLServer B (Inactive)--> Partition X
|        Node2->SQLServer A (Inactive)--> Partition Y
|
| As you pointed out, when node2 fails the diagram would
| look something like this
|
|        Node1->SQLServer A (Active)--> Partition X
|        Node1->SQLServer B (Active)--> Partition Y
| and obviously
|        Node2->SQLServer B (Failed)--> Partition Y
|        Node2->SQLServer A (Failed)--> Partition Y
|
| First, does a node correspond to a physical server? Also,
| do these diagrams accurately reflect what's going on?
|
| Thanks again,
|
| Peter
| _______________________________________________
|
| Previous message:
|
| Peter,
|
| Kinda, sorta.  You missed one piece of the puzzle here.  
| Let me redo the
| diagram.  You have
|
| |       Server A --> Partition X
| |       Server B --> Partition Y
| and the failure question implied
| |       Server A --> Partition X
| |       Server A --> Partition Y
|
| When in reality it should look like this
|
|        Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
|        Node2->SQLServer B --> Partition Y
|
| Now when node2 fails your diagram would look like this
|
|        Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
|        Node1->SQLServer B --> Partition Y
|
| You will have two instances of SQL Server running on one
| node.  The
| instances of SQL Server are independent of the nodes, but
| are not
| independent of their data.
|
| John Gose
| MCDBA
| Microsoft SQL Server Support
|
| This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and
| confers no rights
|
| Are you secure? For information about the Microsoft
| Strategic Technology
| Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool
| Kit, please visit
| http://www.microsoft.com/security.
|
|
| --------------------
| | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message


| | Subject: MSCS vs. Federated Database
| | Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:51:58 -0800
| | Lines: 14
| |
| | Another question about Clustering...
| |
| | Imagine I have the following configuration where Servers
| | A and B are active/active members of a 2 server cluster
| | and Partitions X and Y are separate partitions in a
| | Federated Database:
| |
| |       Server A --> Partition X
| |       Server B --> Partition Y
| |
| | If Server B fails, would A automatically take over the
| | functionality for B by accessing both partitions so that
| | users would still be able to access all data in the
| | database?
| |
|
| .
|
|
|

 
 
 

MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose

Post by Pete » Tue, 02 Apr 2002 05:24:31


Thanks again - you've helped a lot!

Quote:>-----Original Message-----
>Peter,

>No problem.  I think you have it.  Yes, at least in the
way I use it, a
>"node" does represent a physical server.  Virtual SQL
Servers are
>independent of nodes.  You can only have an instance run
on one node at a
>time.

>John Gose
>MCDBA
>Microsoft SQL Server Support

>This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and
confers no rights

>Are you secure? For information about the Microsoft

Strategic Technology

- Show quoted text -

>Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool
Kit, please visit
>http://www.microsoft.com/security.

>--------------------
>| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message


>| Subject: MSCS vs. Fed DB - att: J. Gose
>| Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:30:13 -0800
>| Lines: 99
>|
><Snip of Header Stuff>
>|
>| Thanks for the response John!  Please bear with me as I
>| make sure I understand this correctly...
>|
>| Initially (i.e. pre-failover) I think my configuration
>| looks something like this:
>|
>|        Node1->SQLServer A (Active)  --> Partition X
>|        Node2->SQLServer B (Active)  --> Partition Y
>|        Node1->SQLServer B (Inactive)--> Partition X
>|        Node2->SQLServer A (Inactive)--> Partition Y
>|
>| As you pointed out, when node2 fails the diagram would
>| look something like this
>|
>|        Node1->SQLServer A (Active)--> Partition X
>|        Node1->SQLServer B (Active)--> Partition Y
>| and obviously
>|        Node2->SQLServer B (Failed)--> Partition Y
>|        Node2->SQLServer A (Failed)--> Partition Y
>|
>| First, does a node correspond to a physical server?
Also,
>| do these diagrams accurately reflect what's going on?
>|
>| Thanks again,
>|
>| Peter
>| _______________________________________________
>|
>| Previous message:
>|
>| Peter,
>|
>| Kinda, sorta.  You missed one piece of the puzzle
here.  
>| Let me redo the
>| diagram.  You have
>|
>| |       Server A --> Partition X
>| |       Server B --> Partition Y
>| and the failure question implied
>| |       Server A --> Partition X
>| |       Server A --> Partition Y
>|
>| When in reality it should look like this
>|
>|        Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
>|        Node2->SQLServer B --> Partition Y
>|
>| Now when node2 fails your diagram would look like this
>|
>|        Node1->SQLServer A --> Partition X
>|        Node1->SQLServer B --> Partition Y
>|
>| You will have two instances of SQL Server running on
one
>| node.  The
>| instances of SQL Server are independent of the nodes,
but
>| are not
>| independent of their data.
>|
>| John Gose
>| MCDBA
>| Microsoft SQL Server Support
>|
>| This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties,
and
>| confers no rights
>|
>| Are you secure? For information about the Microsoft
>| Strategic Technology
>| Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool
>| Kit, please visit
>| http://www.microsoft.com/security.
>|
>|
>| --------------------
>| | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message


>| | Subject: MSCS vs. Federated Database
>| | Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:51:58 -0800
>| | Lines: 14
>| |
>| | Another question about Clustering...
>| |
>| | Imagine I have the following configuration where
Servers
>| | A and B are active/active members of a 2 server
cluster
>| | and Partitions X and Y are se{ w ?2 O" parate
partitions in a
>| | Federated Database:
>| |
>| |       Server A --> Partition X
>| |       Server B --> Partition Y
>| |
>| | If Server B fails, would A automatically take over
the
>| | functionality for B by accessing both partitions so
that
>| | users would still be able to access all data in the
>| | database?
>| |
>|
>| .
>|
>|
>|

>.

 
 
 

1. ATT: Andrew J. Kelly

re: in access you can have a column lookup another column in another table, how
is this done in EM, SQL 2000?

if i have two tables in access 2000

TBL = category
cat_id
category_name

TBL = books
book_id
book_title
get_cat_name

in the TBL 'books' i can setup the column 'get_cat_name' to lookup the category_name in the 'category' TBL

can this be done in SQL Server 2000?

2. Using DataModule in MDI environment ???????

3. Visual Basic App using Foxpro DB vs Access DB vs SQL Server DB

4. Windows Error Messages Contest

5. Help, js form validation vs sql validation?

6. SQL Configuration problem ??

7. MSCS und Legato ME for MSCS-Blue Screen

8. MSCS vs. Federated Database

9. Osql replaces line feed with carriage return + line feed

10. Line Feed vs Carriage Return

11. ODBC Vs ODBCDirect Vs ADO Vs OLE/DB advise