Adding a third NODE to an existing SQl server 2000 CLUSTER

Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our production
environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a dedicated
server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server hardware
into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is not
affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have both
a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will be
presented via a SAN.
(1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
(2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
(3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be load
balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
Many Thanks in advance.
RK
Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
> Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our
> production
> environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a
> dedicated
> server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
> ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
> side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server
> hardware
> into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is
> not
> affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have
> both
> a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
> hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will
> be
> presented via a SAN.
> (1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
> (2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
> 2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
> (3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
> SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
> If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
> load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be
> load
> balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
> 2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
> upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
> So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
> Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
> Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
> welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
> Many Thanks in advance.
> RK
>
>
|||Hi,
Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I intended
there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
technically ?
Many thanks in advance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Active/Active does not share data across nodes. Technically, Active/Active
> does not exist. The term described a unique configuration that existed for
> SQL 7.0 when nodes were not equal peers in cluster. There is no load
> balancing or shared databases across nodes in MSCS clustering.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6A544B9-0573-4CE4-829F-D42727C52134@.microsoft.com...
>
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Thanks for that. When I said shared SAN I didnt mean shared databases
> between the cluster nodes. Again when I said load balancing what I
> intended
> there was rather than have an Active/passive configuration and have all
> databases managed by one instance of SQl Server 2000, in Active/Active it
> will be managed by 2 SQL servers. But still you havent answered my main
> question whether the new configuration as mentioned below is possible
> technically ?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||Hi Geoff,
What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4 SQl
server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000 based
and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
Cheers
Rajeev
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> You can have a three node cluster with multiple SQL instances of differing
> versions. You can also set preferred node order for each instance
> independently. Finally, you can set each instance to run on only a subset
> of the nodes, but I would recommend allowing all instances on all nodes,
> just to cover secondary failure possibilities.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2CBECB3-A855-48E9-AAF2-FF2700DFEAD1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||No. Each machine can participate in one and only one cluster. You can have
a single cluster with two SQL instances and three host nodes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"RK" <RK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C91E92BB-0C97-44CE-AC35-D426D9C92F5F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Geoff,
> What I intended to acheive with this was TWO 2 node clusters from the 4
> SQl
> server instances spread around 3 servers. One cluster being a SQL 2000
> based
> and the other one based on SQL 2005. Possible still ?
> Cheers
> Rajeev
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: