MSCS 2003 2-node cluster: one node Exchange, another SQL

Discussion in 'Clustering' started by rmagoon, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. rmagoon

    rmagoon Guest

    We recently had a vendor rep present a storage
    architecture that included a 2-node cluster direct
    attached to a SAN. One node would host an Exchange 2003
    virtual server, with opposite hosting a SQL 2003 virtual
    server. The opposite would be standby nodes for
    respective clustered application. In other words, SQL and
    Exchange cluster aware versions are installed on each
    node. If one node failed, the opposite would host both
    SQL and Exchange. I never heard of this before
    specifically with MSCS. Has anyone had experience with
    this type of configuration? I have my concerns, but
    others don't. I'd like to reference something pro or con
    about this configuration when it's proposed.


    rmagoon, Aug 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I don't see a major concern here other than the individual nodes need to be
    beefy enough to handle both virtual servers and still provide the level of
    service the users require to do their jobs effectively.

    This can be very hard to do as the SQL and the Exchange demands will change
    over time.
    Russ Kaufmann [MCT], Aug 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. rmagoon

    Hector Guest

    Anything database driven will always have a one active node limit (at least with Microsoft products so far). SQL is a prime example. Oracle put a lot of time and effort into creating a truly clustered database but the cost you pay is requiring a high speed interconnect (infiniband etc). As for the setup you described below, this is exactly what MSCS was created for. Creating virtual servers on clustered nodes to handle user requests that can also failover to a stand-by node. The virtual server concept is designed specifically for this. We have 4-way file clusters on 2003 serving up 8TB-12TB of SAN storage with properly dispersed virtual servers so in the event of a node failure/reboot, the virtual servers are properly failed over to all the remaining nodes. We are using MSCS to host mutliple SQL instances on 2 and 4 way clusters. We do not use Exchange... but... the concept applies to Exchange as well. I have heard the pitch you describe below. In reality it is nothing new. As was stated in a previous reply... those nodes better have the horse power to host both SQL and Exchange at the same time... else... that whole design is wasted.

    Hector, Aug 3, 2004
  4. And if your servers can't handle both apps simultaneously, consider adding a
    3rd "failover" node.


    any issues with it. Just make sure the hardware can handle both apps
    running on it in case of failure.
    John Toner [MVP], Aug 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.