This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server 2005, do I
need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover node?
Printable View
This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server 2005, do I
need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover node?
No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
license per instance on a cluster.
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
"Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
> This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server 2005,
> do I
> need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover
> node?
Thank you for your reply. What if I go with active/active clustering?
Russ Sparks
"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
> No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
> license per instance on a cluster.
> --
> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
> Support Escalation Engineer
> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
>
>
> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
> > This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server 2005,
> > do I
> > need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover
> > node?
>
You'd need a license for each server since you would have 2 instances of SQL
running at the same time.
Keep in mind when you say Active/Active you are actually saying you have one
instance of SQL running with it's databases and resources running on Node A
and a second instance of SQL with different databases and resources running
on Node B. In the event of a failure, the instance running on the node that
failed moves over to the other node and now you have 2 instances of SQL
running on the same server. Active/Active doesn't mean you are load
balancing your SQL instances across both servers.
So Active/Passive you have 1 instance running at a time, you need 1 license,
Active/Active you have 2 instances running and therefore you need 2
licenses. If you have a 3rd node running an instance you need a 3rd license.
"Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C33484BB-717D-41EC-A647-DC3AAE92FF0A@microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your reply. What if I go with active/active clustering?
>
> Russ Sparks
>
>
> "Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
>
>> No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
>> license per instance on a cluster.
>> --
>> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
>> Support Escalation Engineer
>> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
>>
>>
>> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
>> > This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server
>> > 2005,
>> > do I
>> > need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover
>> > node?
>>
Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load balancing
the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just keeps on
trucking. That can't be done?
"Tim Walsh" wrote:
> You'd need a license for each server since you would have 2 instances of SQL
> running at the same time.
>
> Keep in mind when you say Active/Active you are actually saying you have one
> instance of SQL running with it's databases and resources running on Node A
> and a second instance of SQL with different databases and resources running
> on Node B. In the event of a failure, the instance running on the node that
> failed moves over to the other node and now you have 2 instances of SQL
> running on the same server. Active/Active doesn't mean you are load
> balancing your SQL instances across both servers.
>
> So Active/Passive you have 1 instance running at a time, you need 1 license,
> Active/Active you have 2 instances running and therefore you need 2
> licenses. If you have a 3rd node running an instance you need a 3rd license.
>
> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C33484BB-717D-41EC-A647-DC3AAE92FF0A@microsoft.com...
> > Thank you for your reply. What if I go with active/active clustering?
> >
> > Russ Sparks
> >
> >
> > "Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
> >
> >> No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
> >> license per instance on a cluster.
> >> --
> >> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
> >> Support Escalation Engineer
> >> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
> >>
> >>
> >> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
> >> > This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server
> >> > 2005,
> >> > do I
> >> > need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the failover
> >> > node?
> >>
>
>
>
I'm not sure what you can do with SQL, it's not an area that I'm that
familiar with. The SQL clusters I've set up for the Developers have all been
Active/Passive. It sounds like your looking at Network Load Balancing
instead of a clustered solution. You probably want to be asking over in the
SQL Clustering forum, I don't want to mislead you with bad information on
what you can do with a SQL Cluster. Some of the MVPs and other regulars on
here can probably provide better info in this regard.
"Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14631440-B662-43C1-A279-2C55998B867C@microsoft.com...
> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load balancing
> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just keeps
> on
> trucking. That can't be done?
>
> "Tim Walsh" wrote:
>
>> You'd need a license for each server since you would have 2 instances of
>> SQL
>> running at the same time.
>>
>> Keep in mind when you say Active/Active you are actually saying you have
>> one
>> instance of SQL running with it's databases and resources running on Node
>> A
>> and a second instance of SQL with different databases and resources
>> running
>> on Node B. In the event of a failure, the instance running on the node
>> that
>> failed moves over to the other node and now you have 2 instances of SQL
>> running on the same server. Active/Active doesn't mean you are load
>> balancing your SQL instances across both servers.
>>
>> So Active/Passive you have 1 instance running at a time, you need 1
>> license,
>> Active/Active you have 2 instances running and therefore you need 2
>> licenses. If you have a 3rd node running an instance you need a 3rd
>> license.
>>
>> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C33484BB-717D-41EC-A647-DC3AAE92FF0A@microsoft.com...
>> > Thank you for your reply. What if I go with active/active clustering?
>> >
>> > Russ Sparks
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
>> >> license per instance on a cluster.
>> >> --
>> >> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
>> >> Support Escalation Engineer
>> >> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
>> >> > This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server
>> >> > 2005,
>> >> > do I
>> >> > need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the
>> >> > failover
>> >> > node?
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load balancing
> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just keeps
on
> trucking. That can't be done?
common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared nothnig"
cluster model, and therefore the SQL instance can only be online on 1 node
at the time. No loadbalancing
cross-posting to microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering to get some more
responses.
Rgds
Edwin.
>
> "Tim Walsh" wrote:
>
> > You'd need a license for each server since you would have 2 instances of
SQL
> > running at the same time.
> >
> > Keep in mind when you say Active/Active you are actually saying you have
one
> > instance of SQL running with it's databases and resources running on
Node A
> > and a second instance of SQL with different databases and resources
running
> > on Node B. In the event of a failure, the instance running on the node
that
> > failed moves over to the other node and now you have 2 instances of SQL
> > running on the same server. Active/Active doesn't mean you are load
> > balancing your SQL instances across both servers.
> >
> > So Active/Passive you have 1 instance running at a time, you need 1
license,
> > Active/Active you have 2 instances running and therefore you need 2
> > licenses. If you have a 3rd node running an instance you need a 3rd
license.
> >
> > "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C33484BB-717D-41EC-A647-DC3AAE92FF0A@microsoft.com...
> > > Thank you for your reply. What if I go with active/active clustering?
> > >
> > > Russ Sparks
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
> > >
> > >> No, since SQL is only active on one node at a time, you only need one
> > >> license per instance on a cluster.
> > >> --
> > >> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
> > >> Support Escalation Engineer
> > >> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Russ Sparks" <RussSparks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:9A7A7466-2B44-41F1-8305-D29380152C76@microsoft.com...
> > >> > This might not be the right place, but, when clustering SQL server
> > >> > 2005,
> > >> > do I
> > >> > need to have an additional SQL 2005 enterprise license for the
failover
> > >> > node?
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
<EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load balancing
>> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just keeps
>on
>> trucking. That can't be done?
>
>common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared nothnig"
>cluster model,
Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
is distributed partitioned views.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
>
> Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
> quite clearly shared.
You are correct that the disk are called "shared", however the cluster model
is definitely called "shared nothing" model
We (the cluster MVP's) have discussed with the Microsoft Cluster team at the
last summit to change the terminology in regards to disks, and call them
"multi node access disks" or something along that line... it will help
preventing confusions on terminology in the future.
Still it is a "shared nothing cluster model"....
;-)
Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
does the rant better than I do on this topic.
I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering arbitrates
ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any given time.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey@snet.net> wrote in message
news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
> <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
>>> balancing
>>> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
>>> keeps
>>on
>>> trucking. That can't be done?
>>
>>common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
>>nothnig"
>>cluster model,
>
> Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
> quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
> is distributed partitioned views.
>
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
> Mike Hotek
> does the rant better than I do on this topic.
don't be modest Geoff... you are doing a pretty good job yourself
;-)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:05:07 -0400, "Geoff N. Hiten"
<SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote:
>Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
>not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
>owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
>very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
>does the rant better than I do on this topic.
>
>I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering arbitrates
>ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any given time.
OK, I was taking it from a database angle, and the original comment
was made about clustering in general rather than database. Thanks to
all for the lesson.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
--
Jeff Hughes, MCSE
Senior Support Escalation Engineer
Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
> not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
> owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
> very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
> does the rant better than I do on this topic.
>
> I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
> arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
> given time.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
> "Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
>> <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
>>>> balancing
>>>> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
>>>> keeps
>>>on
>>>> trucking. That can't be done?
>>>
>>>common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
>>>nothnig"
>>>cluster model,
>>
>> Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
>> quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
>> is distributed partitioned views.
>>
>> Roy Harvey
>> Beacon Falls, CT
>
I dont think i can glean this permutation from previous posts - I have set up
fail over cluster (active/passive) with a single instance - license SQL 2005
standard edition 2 processors to cover either host node. I now wish to add a
couple of new instances to this configuration - still with same active
passive arrangement..
does each instance need additional SQLlicensing? even if its virtual
environment/machine is using the same hardware resources at all times. If so
is it possible to add additional instances to the existing 'machine' as you
would a standard physical setup? Presumably this would not require additional
licensing.
Hoping there is some documentation that explains this clearly somewhere..
thanks
"Jeff Hughes [MSFT]" wrote:
> Actually a better definition of the 'shared nothing' model is that although
> resources (disks, IPs, network names, applications, etc.) can move between
> nodes in a cluster, one node and ONLY one node has access or "owns" those
> resources at a time. You can see this with disks in that if you try and
> access a disk in a cluster owned by another node
> --
> Jeff Hughes, MCSE
> Senior Support Escalation Engineer
> Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support (Server Core/Cluster)
>
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OuCnY3ECJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Shared Nothing means that no node or instance is dependent on any resource
> > not on that node or instance. As such, instances cannot access data files
> > owned by another instance. I agree that the terminology "shared disk" is
> > very misleading, as is "Active/Active" and all its variants. Mike Hotek
> > does the rant better than I do on this topic.
> >
> > I always use "multi-connected" disk and emphasize that Clustering
> > arbitrates ownership so only one node actually controls a resource at any
> > given time.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP)" <roy_harvey@snet.net> wrote in message
> > news:5ulab45er6g0o6jh5vuken2466dll25ons@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0100, "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]"
> >> <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Oh, my understanding was that with active/active that it is load
> >>>> balancing
> >>>> the same database on shared storage and if one fails the other just
> >>>> keeps
> >>>on
> >>>> trucking. That can't be done?
> >>>
> >>>common misunderstanding, Microsoft Failover clustering is a "shared
> >>>nothnig"
> >>>cluster model,
> >>
> >> Microsoft failover clustering is not "shared nothing". The disks are
> >> quite clearly shared. The closest SQL Server comes to shared nothing
> >> is distributed partitioned views.
> >>
> >> Roy Harvey
> >> Beacon Falls, CT
> >
At what point do you select to make the 2nd hosts inactive?
We are researching to buy a whole new setup but i can't find out where in the process would i choose "inactive"