Adding a resource (Generic Script) to the SQL Cluster

I would like to add a VB Script to the SQL Cluster so that
in the event of a failover the script will execute on the
new active node. The script goes out and checks for the
existance of some key files once a day.
I am running Windows 2003 SQL 2000 in an Active / Passive
configuration.
I have the VBS running every morning through task Mgr, but
I would like to get it configured to run as a clustered
resource and failover to the active node.
Thanks,
In 2003, there is a "Generic Script" resource type that support VBS and Perl
scripts. Check out the following for more details:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ric_script.asp
Regards,
John
"Rodney" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:441301c47333$a3be4aa0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I would like to add a VB Script to the SQL Cluster so that
> in the event of a failover the script will execute on the
> new active node. The script goes out and checks for the
> existance of some key files once a day.
> I am running Windows 2003 SQL 2000 in an Active / Passive
> configuration.
> I have the VBS running every morning through task Mgr, but
> I would like to get it configured to run as a clustered
> resource and failover to the active node.
> Thanks,

Add SAN Disk Resource to Active/Active SQL cluster

Looking to see if I am missing any steps below to adding a SAN disk
resource to an Active/Active SQL cluster:
-Create Volumes
-Present LUNs to both Nodes
-Failover Cluster Groups to Node2
-On Node1
Disable ClusDisk
Disable Cluster Services
Reboot Node1
Rescan for hardware changes
Write the disk signature
Set disk to basic
Create Partition
Assign Drive Letter
Enable ClusDisk
Enable Cluster Services
Reboot Node1
-On Node2
Failover Cluster Groups to Node1
Disable ClusDisk
Disable Cluster Services
Reboot Node2
Rescan for hardware changes
Assign Drive Letter
Enable ClusDisk
Enable Cluster Services
Reboot Node2
-Assign disk resource to Cluster Groups
-On Node1
Take SQL Server Resource offline
Add SQL Server Resource dependency to disk resource
Bring SQL Server Resource online
-On Node2
Repeat above
-Test failover
Thanks,
Ian in SD
With Windows 2003 as the host, you may be able to skip some of the reboots.
You can rescan the disk list and pick up newly added disks. I have never
had to disable or stop the cluster service to pick up new disks. I do make
sure and do all the work on a node that does not currently host any cluster
resources. Once I am done, I can rescan the disk list on the other node(s)
and failover at will. If you have the downtime, the reboots won't hurt, but
they may not be necessary.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<theredmiata@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142967852.423752.294080@.i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Looking to see if I am missing any steps below to adding a SAN disk
> resource to an Active/Active SQL cluster:
>
> -Create Volumes
> -Present LUNs to both Nodes
> -Failover Cluster Groups to Node2
> -On Node1
> Disable ClusDisk
> Disable Cluster Services
> Reboot Node1
> Rescan for hardware changes
> Write the disk signature
> Set disk to basic
> Create Partition
> Assign Drive Letter
> Enable ClusDisk
> Enable Cluster Services
> Reboot Node1
> -On Node2
> Failover Cluster Groups to Node1
> Disable ClusDisk
> Disable Cluster Services
> Reboot Node2
> Rescan for hardware changes
> Assign Drive Letter
> Enable ClusDisk
> Enable Cluster Services
> Reboot Node2
> -Assign disk resource to Cluster Groups
> -On Node1
> Take SQL Server Resource offline
> Add SQL Server Resource dependency to disk resource
> Bring SQL Server Resource online
> -On Node2
> Repeat above
> -Test failover
> Thanks,
> Ian in SD
>
|||Thanks for the reply Geoff. This the first time for this process as we
are trying to split the file groups and would like to have each group
on a seperate volume.

Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?

Hi All,
We have a Win2003 Enterprise/SQL 2000 "active/passive" cluster, and we want
to split a few larger DB's off to a seperate and new "active/passive"
cluster. The reason for the split is to allow this new cluster to control
the one application and the other cluster to control the existing app.
Currently we have:
SQL LUN occupying 4 Raid 10 disks with 175 GB assigned to this LUN. Doing
the math leaves us with appx. 225 GB left on these 4 discs that is
unnassigned and unformatted.
T-log/Quorum LUN occupying 2 Raid 10 disks with all of the space assigned to
this LUN (appx 134 GB).
We are most likely not going to utilize the entire 175 GB for the data
collection side let alone the additional 225 GB. At what impact to the disk
I/O are we going to suffer if we create the new a/p cluster using a newly
assigned LUN that occupies the previously unformatted 225 GB on the SQL data
disks? So essentially we would have 2 seperate virtual servers operating off
of the same spindles, however 2 different LUN's. My gut feeling says that we
would take some type of I/O performance hit since 2 seperate high I/O
applications are accessing the same spindles. We would however have 2 new
RAID 10 disks for the t-logs and quorum of the new cluster and since they are
the highest I/O portion of SQL and would not be sharing this is the only
reason I think the idea may be feasible.
The reasons for trying to use the unformatted space on those 4 spindles is:
A) The data collection app already running on those spindles in the 175 GB
space is never going to use all of that space (it is using 50 GB currently
and at least half of that is the other app we want to split off). So a
future of adding the 225 GB as a metalun to the existing SQL LUN is slim to
nill.
B) We are hosed on that 225 GB of space for eternity really. If we can't
use it for another SQL cluster I don't think there is anyway we would use it
for file storage for example. That is based on my opinion...I have a hard
time believing it is okay to add another set of SQL data let alone file data.
C) We only have 3 slots left in the first SAN cabinet. We will be using 2
of those for a RAID 10 t-log setup for the new SQL cluster so that leaves us
with 1 drive space open for the new SQL cluster data which=impossible. So
now we not only have to buy additional drives but also a new cabinet and all
associated hardware.
Keep in mind our main goal here is the processing power. Our existing
cluster's processor is by no means outdated, but the data collection AND
reporting runs at the same time are causing slow downs due to processing
requests from many different applications. If reporting were on it's own
cluster that means it has its own server to beat up on and our clients don't
notice delays in web surveys or IVR calls when the daily reports are being
aggregated.
Any help provided is greatly appreciated.
You need to stress test, look at the results, and then test some more.
Testing will tell you what the correct answer is for your environment.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18DB25CC-37FC-4FEF-AF56-64696BE9D0B8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> We have a Win2003 Enterprise/SQL 2000 "active/passive" cluster, and we
> want
> to split a few larger DB's off to a seperate and new "active/passive"
> cluster. The reason for the split is to allow this new cluster to control
> the one application and the other cluster to control the existing app.
> Currently we have:
> SQL LUN occupying 4 Raid 10 disks with 175 GB assigned to this LUN. Doing
> the math leaves us with appx. 225 GB left on these 4 discs that is
> unnassigned and unformatted.
> T-log/Quorum LUN occupying 2 Raid 10 disks with all of the space assigned
> to
> this LUN (appx 134 GB).
> We are most likely not going to utilize the entire 175 GB for the data
> collection side let alone the additional 225 GB. At what impact to the
> disk
> I/O are we going to suffer if we create the new a/p cluster using a newly
> assigned LUN that occupies the previously unformatted 225 GB on the SQL
> data
> disks? So essentially we would have 2 seperate virtual servers operating
> off
> of the same spindles, however 2 different LUN's. My gut feeling says that
> we
> would take some type of I/O performance hit since 2 seperate high I/O
> applications are accessing the same spindles. We would however have 2 new
> RAID 10 disks for the t-logs and quorum of the new cluster and since they
> are
> the highest I/O portion of SQL and would not be sharing this is the only
> reason I think the idea may be feasible.
> The reasons for trying to use the unformatted space on those 4 spindles
> is:
> A) The data collection app already running on those spindles in the 175
> GB
> space is never going to use all of that space (it is using 50 GB currently
> and at least half of that is the other app we want to split off). So a
> future of adding the 225 GB as a metalun to the existing SQL LUN is slim
> to
> nill.
> B) We are hosed on that 225 GB of space for eternity really. If we can't
> use it for another SQL cluster I don't think there is anyway we would use
> it
> for file storage for example. That is based on my opinion...I have a hard
> time believing it is okay to add another set of SQL data let alone file
> data.
> C) We only have 3 slots left in the first SAN cabinet. We will be using 2
> of those for a RAID 10 t-log setup for the new SQL cluster so that leaves
> us
> with 1 drive space open for the new SQL cluster data which=impossible. So
> now we not only have to buy additional drives but also a new cabinet and
> all
> associated hardware.
> Keep in mind our main goal here is the processing power. Our existing
> cluster's processor is by no means outdated, but the data collection AND
> reporting runs at the same time are causing slow downs due to processing
> requests from many different applications. If reporting were on it's own
> cluster that means it has its own server to beat up on and our clients
> don't
> notice delays in web surveys or IVR calls when the daily reports are being
> aggregated.
> Any help provided is greatly appreciated.
|||I realize that testing is the ideal way to come to the complete conclusion on
our pathway but my first and foremost question really is has anyone
successfully used a set of drives and have 2 luns for 2 different virtual
servers on that same set of drives?
I'd like to know if I am doing something "average" or if the general
consensus is against such an idea. That helps me to determine how much of a
possibility this really becomes and how much money I will be spending.
Thanks for your input thusfar.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> You need to stress test, look at the results, and then test some more.
> Testing will tell you what the correct answer is for your environment.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:18DB25CC-37FC-4FEF-AF56-64696BE9D0B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||It depends on the SAN. You may not be allowed to share the drives with
different servers.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A4415101-D95B-4871-A666-4D4A2497275F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I realize that testing is the ideal way to come to the complete conclusion
>on
> our pathway but my first and foremost question really is has anyone
> successfully used a set of drives and have 2 luns for 2 different virtual
> servers on that same set of drives?
> I'd like to know if I am doing something "average" or if the general
> consensus is against such an idea. That helps me to determine how much of
> a
> possibility this really becomes and how much money I will be spending.
> Thanks for your input thusfar.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||The SAN is indeed capable. Creating a LUN out of the 225 GB of unformatted
data and assigning it to the new SQL server storage group is quick and easy.
The first 5 drives of our SAN share the system binaries, Snapview reserved
LUN's, and 3 additional LUN's all set as RAID 5 (making a total of 509 GB
divided between several different LUN's.) It is possible to share the same
drives with more than one server, however you can't share one LUN with more
than 1 server.
However we would have 1 virtual server accessing the original LUN of 175 GB
and the other virtual server accessing the newly created LUN of 225 GB--my
only hang up being the fact that the 2 LUN's exist on the same set of 4
drives and if you have 2 completely independent SQL servers accessing the
same drives is it going to put a hurt on performance. Again, t-logs stay
seperate (IE the 2 virtual servers would not be sharing the t-log drives,
they would each have their seperate set of RAID 10 drives) so that is my only
saving grace thinking this implementation may be possible.
I am here because I need a second opinion (and 3rd or 4ths if possible) from
some higher SQL guru's. I personally am the Net Admin so my SQL experience
is not broad however I understand the concept of the SAN well and know what I
am looking to do with the SQL servers.
Thanks!
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> It depends on the SAN. You may not be allowed to share the drives with
> different servers.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A4415101-D95B-4871-A666-4D4A2497275F@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Even a SAN has a maximum I/O capacity. Whether you are I/O bound on the
disks in question will determine whether using the remaining space will
impact your current system performance. Your SAN vendor (EMC from the hints
you dropped) should have tools (likely for an additional fee) that can
measure IO at the LUN/RAID set/disk level. You will definitely need that
capability in order to measure the impact of your proposed change. A quick
test would be to run a simulated SQL I/O load on the newly created LUNs
while monitoring I/O performance at the SQL, OS, and SAN levels. Do the
same without the load and see how much you can get away with.
Personally, I prefer to use LUNS that map one-to-one to RAID Sets, mostly to
avoid this problem. Since that isn't a real option now, you may want to
consider purchasing an additional drive tray. It isn't the cheapest
solution, but it may be the most effective.
BTW, you can share a LUN with more than one server. That is how a cluster
is built. Access Logix whines about it but you can force it to do what you
need. .
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA48AC82-6A9F-4738-BDB6-08D10D16EAB4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The SAN is indeed capable. Creating a LUN out of the 225 GB of
> unformatted
> data and assigning it to the new SQL server storage group is quick and
> easy.
> The first 5 drives of our SAN share the system binaries, Snapview reserved
> LUN's, and 3 additional LUN's all set as RAID 5 (making a total of 509 GB
> divided between several different LUN's.) It is possible to share the
> same
> drives with more than one server, however you can't share one LUN with
> more
> than 1 server.
> However we would have 1 virtual server accessing the original LUN of 175
> GB
> and the other virtual server accessing the newly created LUN of 225 GB--my
> only hang up being the fact that the 2 LUN's exist on the same set of 4
> drives and if you have 2 completely independent SQL servers accessing the
> same drives is it going to put a hurt on performance. Again, t-logs stay
> seperate (IE the 2 virtual servers would not be sharing the t-log drives,
> they would each have their seperate set of RAID 10 drives) so that is my
> only
> saving grace thinking this implementation may be possible.
> I am here because I need a second opinion (and 3rd or 4ths if possible)
> from
> some higher SQL guru's. I personally am the Net Admin so my SQL
> experience
> is not broad however I understand the concept of the SAN well and know
> what I
> am looking to do with the SQL servers.
> Thanks!
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I don't have access to the tool you mentioned but will research it (Dell/EMC
is correct by the way). I still have the fear of affecting performance on
both virtual servers by forcing them to share the same 4 disks because RAID
10 is not even bulletproof enough to gurantee a good speed if we are high on
the disk I/O side. I didn't want to semi-blindly make a decision to purchase
another cabinet and additional drives...hence why I came out here looking to
see if a few MVP's reccomended against it. I figured real world experience
may help me in the decision.
Like I told Rodney, I know testing is in store for us--a smoking gun for the
decision. All I have now are my own opinions and reservations and that isn't
enough to guide my decision to spend or not spend money.
Thanks for the advice.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Even a SAN has a maximum I/O capacity. Whether you are I/O bound on the
> disks in question will determine whether using the remaining space will
> impact your current system performance. Your SAN vendor (EMC from the hints
> you dropped) should have tools (likely for an additional fee) that can
> measure IO at the LUN/RAID set/disk level. You will definitely need that
> capability in order to measure the impact of your proposed change. A quick
> test would be to run a simulated SQL I/O load on the newly created LUNs
> while monitoring I/O performance at the SQL, OS, and SAN levels. Do the
> same without the load and see how much you can get away with.
> Personally, I prefer to use LUNS that map one-to-one to RAID Sets, mostly to
> avoid this problem. Since that isn't a real option now, you may want to
> consider purchasing an additional drive tray. It isn't the cheapest
> solution, but it may be the most effective.
> BTW, you can share a LUN with more than one server. That is how a cluster
> is built. Access Logix whines about it but you can force it to do what you
> need. .
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DA48AC82-6A9F-4738-BDB6-08D10D16EAB4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I am speaking from experience here: spindle contention can big the BIGGEST
bottleneck to a SQL installation. Recommendation, be careful. I think you
are on the right track though. A few points to help guide you.
1. A physical spindle (real disk) has limited IOPS and bandwidth capacity,
anywhere between 75 and 150 IOPS (I/Os per second) theoretical maximum
sequential reads. Random reads and any type of writes decrease from there.
To overcome this limitation, Meta-volumes are constructed out of the RAID
sets/Hyper-volumes.
2. Whether or not these RAID sets from which you construct the Hyper and
Meta-volumes are dedicated to a single host, single activity (OS, swap file,
TLogs, Data Files, or TempDB) or shared among many hosts with similar or
varied activity (DBMSes, Messaging Server, File Server, Web Servers,
Application Servers, or Middleware components), the physical spindles retain
the same theoretical IOPS and bandwidth capacities. Make sure what you
construct can handle the anticipated loads: both in IOPS and total
throughput.
3. The various activities of all hosts as well as those of a particular host
need to be isolated: O/S, page file, Quorum, MS DTC, TLogs, Data Files,
TempDB, Exchange Server jet files, Web Server pages, etc. You could
however, create a large RAID set that could be shared across multiple hosts
from which you construct several Meta-volumes that are dedicated to, say,
page file space. The point is ISOLATE the TYPE of activity, then share with
as many hosts as the IOPS and bandwidth will support.
4. Some of the physical spindle limitations can be addressed through the SAN
cache, which can be configured fractionally as dedicated to Read and or
Write operations. This piece requires a detailed understanding of the SAN
configuration and the anticipated host activity, whether or not that
activity has been made homogeneous throughout the SAN or whether or not the
various activities have been segmented to dedicate RAID sets.
5. Consider the number of SAN fibre controllers and available ports, each
one has a theoretical limit that can be overloaded and the number limits the
total activity that can be assigned to a given SAN cabinet installation.
6. Network switches, each port and switch have theoretical limitations and
which will be serving up all connected hosts. The total usage must be
aggregated to properly configure.
7. HBAs on each host have limitations. Even if you go through all of the
trouble of isolating activity on the SAN, carving up and presented isolated
LUNs to each host dedicated to the separate activities, if you try to run
all of that through one or two HBAs, you may still cause the same sort of
contention. Seriously consider running Windows 2003 and using STORport
drivers over SCSIport minidrivers. You will also need to look into a MPIO
solution like Veritas Volume Manager or EMC Power Path. This will allow you
to leverage the bandwidth across all HBAs and allow you to get by with fewer
overall, not to mention this will provide you another
Single-Point-of-Failure isolation.
8. Finally, I've already said it, but it so important that I'm going to say
it again. Many engineers only aggregate and examine total bandwidth real
and/or anticipated consumption, in the components, networks, or storage
solutions. That is, size capacity and throughput. How much data do I need
to store and how much do I need to transfer per second. However, for a
heavily used OLTP system, size is less important. Number of concurrent
transactions, and thus IOPS, will be the limiting factor. I don't know how
many times I have asked my sub-system engineers to look into either the
network or storage components just to have them come back and tell me I am
only using 10% of the bandwidth or total storage capacity. To which I
respond, I am running over 1,000 TPS and up to 1,000,000 IOPS. The typical
response is "Huh?". Which is never a good response to hear in a crisis
situation.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9993F283-E654-4F30-8316-E491670CCF35@.microsoft.com...
> I don't have access to the tool you mentioned but will research it
(Dell/EMC
> is correct by the way). I still have the fear of affecting performance on
> both virtual servers by forcing them to share the same 4 disks because
RAID
> 10 is not even bulletproof enough to gurantee a good speed if we are high
on
> the disk I/O side. I didn't want to semi-blindly make a decision to
purchase
> another cabinet and additional drives...hence why I came out here looking
to
> see if a few MVP's reccomended against it. I figured real world
experience
> may help me in the decision.
> Like I told Rodney, I know testing is in store for us--a smoking gun for
the
> decision. All I have now are my own opinions and reservations and that
isn't[vbcol=seagreen]
> enough to guide my decision to spend or not spend money.
> Thanks for the advice.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
hints[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
quick[vbcol=seagreen]
mostly to[vbcol=seagreen]
cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
reserved[vbcol=seagreen]
GB[vbcol=seagreen]
175[vbcol=seagreen]
GB--my[vbcol=seagreen]
4[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
stay[vbcol=seagreen]
drives,[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
possible)[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
general[vbcol=seagreen]
much[vbcol=seagreen]
spending.[vbcol=seagreen]
more.[vbcol=seagreen]
environment.[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
existing[vbcol=seagreen]
LUN.[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
using a[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
high[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
since[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
off).[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
If we[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
alone[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
cabinet[vbcol=seagreen]
collection[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Anthony,
This is exactly what I was looking for. We have dual HBA's using the
Storport driver and Powerpath on all of our SAN host servers so we are trying
to make the best of our fibre connections.
In the end I think that I may play it cautious and create a new RAID group,
move our SQL data over temporarily, and destroy/recreate the 4 disk RAID 10
into 2 RAID 10 groups with 2 drives a piece and then add 2 drives to our
remaining open slots and create a RAID 10 group out of them for the second
virtual servers t-logs.
My final decision will probably come based upon our drive usage analysis,
but as you said I am going to be careful
"Anthony Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I am speaking from experience here: spindle contention can big the BIGGEST
> bottleneck to a SQL installation. Recommendation, be careful. I think you
> are on the right track though. A few points to help guide you.
> 1. A physical spindle (real disk) has limited IOPS and bandwidth capacity,
> anywhere between 75 and 150 IOPS (I/Os per second) theoretical maximum
> sequential reads. Random reads and any type of writes decrease from there.
> To overcome this limitation, Meta-volumes are constructed out of the RAID
> sets/Hyper-volumes.
> 2. Whether or not these RAID sets from which you construct the Hyper and
> Meta-volumes are dedicated to a single host, single activity (OS, swap file,
> TLogs, Data Files, or TempDB) or shared among many hosts with similar or
> varied activity (DBMSes, Messaging Server, File Server, Web Servers,
> Application Servers, or Middleware components), the physical spindles retain
> the same theoretical IOPS and bandwidth capacities. Make sure what you
> construct can handle the anticipated loads: both in IOPS and total
> throughput.
> 3. The various activities of all hosts as well as those of a particular host
> need to be isolated: O/S, page file, Quorum, MS DTC, TLogs, Data Files,
> TempDB, Exchange Server jet files, Web Server pages, etc. You could
> however, create a large RAID set that could be shared across multiple hosts
> from which you construct several Meta-volumes that are dedicated to, say,
> page file space. The point is ISOLATE the TYPE of activity, then share with
> as many hosts as the IOPS and bandwidth will support.
> 4. Some of the physical spindle limitations can be addressed through the SAN
> cache, which can be configured fractionally as dedicated to Read and or
> Write operations. This piece requires a detailed understanding of the SAN
> configuration and the anticipated host activity, whether or not that
> activity has been made homogeneous throughout the SAN or whether or not the
> various activities have been segmented to dedicate RAID sets.
> 5. Consider the number of SAN fibre controllers and available ports, each
> one has a theoretical limit that can be overloaded and the number limits the
> total activity that can be assigned to a given SAN cabinet installation.
> 6. Network switches, each port and switch have theoretical limitations and
> which will be serving up all connected hosts. The total usage must be
> aggregated to properly configure.
> 7. HBAs on each host have limitations. Even if you go through all of the
> trouble of isolating activity on the SAN, carving up and presented isolated
> LUNs to each host dedicated to the separate activities, if you try to run
> all of that through one or two HBAs, you may still cause the same sort of
> contention. Seriously consider running Windows 2003 and using STORport
> drivers over SCSIport minidrivers. You will also need to look into a MPIO
> solution like Veritas Volume Manager or EMC Power Path. This will allow you
> to leverage the bandwidth across all HBAs and allow you to get by with fewer
> overall, not to mention this will provide you another
> Single-Point-of-Failure isolation.
> 8. Finally, I've already said it, but it so important that I'm going to say
> it again. Many engineers only aggregate and examine total bandwidth real
> and/or anticipated consumption, in the components, networks, or storage
> solutions. That is, size capacity and throughput. How much data do I need
> to store and how much do I need to transfer per second. However, for a
> heavily used OLTP system, size is less important. Number of concurrent
> transactions, and thus IOPS, will be the limiting factor. I don't know how
> many times I have asked my sub-system engineers to look into either the
> network or storage components just to have them come back and tell me I am
> only using 10% of the bandwidth or total storage capacity. To which I
> respond, I am running over 1,000 TPS and up to 1,000,000 IOPS. The typical
> response is "Huh?". Which is never a good response to hear in a crisis
> situation.
> Hope this helps.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "skyline" <skyline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9993F283-E654-4F30-8316-E491670CCF35@.microsoft.com...
> (Dell/EMC
> RAID
> on
> purchase
> to
> experience
> the
> isn't
> hints
> that
> quick
> mostly to
> cluster
> you
> reserved
> GB
> 175
> GB--my
> 4
> the
> stay
> drives,
> my
> possible)
> with
> general
> much
> spending.
> more.
> environment.
> and
> to
> existing
> LUN.
> is
> the
> to
> using a
> the
> high
> have
> since
> the
|||Hi,
Could you indicate a good tool that perform IO Stress with SQL 2005 over
64-bit plataform? SQLIOStress isn′t fully compatible with that.
Thank you!
Luis

add domain login from management studio

We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
However when trying to do the same process using management studio
from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
MattI've previously posted a bug to connect.microsoft.com about this. Please go
there
(https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...=126
183) and let them know of your problem.
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"Matt Ziegler" wrote:

> We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
> secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
> extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
> windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
> login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
> connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
> However when trying to do the same process using management studio
> from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
> find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
> open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
> computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
> I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
> name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Matt
>|||The problem that you are having is that when the SQL GUI opens the dialog to
select a user, it defaults to the local machine. Because the machine is
running as a domain controller it has no local accounts, and no local accoun
t
database.
Please go to connect.microsoft.com
(https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...=126
183) and post additional information reguarding the issue.
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"Matt Ziegler" wrote:

> We have a SQL Server 2005 SP2 server that also functions as a
> secondary domain controller in active directory. Everything works
> extremely well except for 1 bug that was found today. Currently
> windows authentication is the only method. When creating a new sql
> login either physically at the server or through a remote desktop
> connection the user is found in the domain and works just fine.
> However when trying to do the same process using management studio
> from a desktop connecting to the sql instance as soon as you try to
> find the user in the domain you get this error: "The program cannot
> open the required dialog box because it cannot determine whether the
> computer name "COMPNAME" is joined to a domain."
> I have sysadmin privileges on the sql server and if I use my login
> name on the server physically I am able to create logins.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Matt
>

Add a third node to a cluster

I have two node SQL Enterprise installed on a Windows 2003 cluster running
active -active. I would like to add a third node so that it would become 2
active and 1 passive . Is this feasible ?
Also , can someone tell me how can I make the third node standby for the
other two ? Do I have to install any binary and executable on the third node
/ modify the possible owner ?
Raymond
Look at "How to add nodes to an existing virtual server (Setup)" in BOL. It
gives a step by step on how to do it.
After you ran that, follow the steps in the Service Pack readme that you
have installed on the other nodes.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Norman" <raymond.chan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u7qvDXwYFHA.2288@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have two node SQL Enterprise installed on a Windows 2003 cluster running
>active -active. I would like to add a third node so that it would become 2
>active and 1 passive . Is this feasible ?
> Also , can someone tell me how can I make the third node standby for the
> other two ? Do I have to install any binary and executable on the third
> node / modify the possible owner ?
> Raymond
>
|||Norman
To control failover you can use the Preferred Owners List on the Group
Property sheets. However if you have a Windows 2003 Cluster you can implement
AntiAffintityClassNames to make absolutely certain that a node that is in a
passive role take ownership of a group in the event of a failure. See the
following KB for details on how to setup.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q296799
Regards
CT
"Norman" wrote:

> I have two node SQL Enterprise installed on a Windows 2003 cluster running
> active -active. I would like to add a third node so that it would become 2
> active and 1 passive . Is this feasible ?
> Also , can someone tell me how can I make the third node standby for the
> other two ? Do I have to install any binary and executable on the third node
> / modify the possible owner ?
> Raymond
>
>

Add a 3rd node to a 2 instance active/active cluster

If I add a 3rd node to an already existing 2 node active/active cluster, do
I have to take the other 2 instances offline as I configure the 3rd node?
I have never configured a cluster before, but I am under the assumption that
when you build a cluster, each nodes should be able to map to the shared
resource drives and due to that, I would have to take the other instances
offline.
Thanks
Not that it matters, but SQL2K or 2K5? I've just been doing this the
past couple of days and have some tips for you if 2K...
But to answer your question - you shouldn't have to take them offline.
On Feb 4, 12:24 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> If I add a 3rd node to an already existing 2 node active/active cluster, do
> I have to take the other 2 instances offline as I configure the 3rd node?
> I have never configured a cluster before, but I am under the assumption that
> when you build a cluster, each nodes should be able to map to the shared
> resource drives and due to that, I would have to take the other instances
> offline.
> Thanks
|||Im all ears for tips.. so shoot away.. Can your tips not apply for 2K5 ?
<unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170779511.734049.110890@.s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
> Not that it matters, but SQL2K or 2K5? I've just been doing this the
> past couple of days and have some tips for you if 2K...
> But to answer your question - you shouldn't have to take them offline.
> On Feb 4, 12:24 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
|||It will take the instances offline, although SS2K5 minimizes this much more.
A bigger issue is that before the new node will be able to host the
resources, you will need to patch it to the same build level as the other
two nodes.
The add a node step only lays out the RTM binaries.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23kRF9AmSHHA.1364@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Im all ears for tips.. so shoot away.. Can your tips not apply for 2K5 ?
> <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1170779511.734049.110890@.s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
cluster,[vbcol=seagreen]
node?[vbcol=seagreen]
shared[vbcol=seagreen]
instances
>

Add /3GB to Server 4GB

I have SQL Server 2000 cluster this is Active/Active.
The server has total 4GB of RAM with Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
Should the /3GB be applied to the both Active/Active nodes?
I would like the primary node to get 2.8 GB and the secondary node to get
1.2 GB of RAM.
Please help me with this problem.
Thank You,
The /3GB switch affects the VIRTUAL memory, not necessarily the physical RAM
and is for each process, each of which gets their own respective address
space. So, in short, yes, set it on each node of the cluster.
Next, you need to account for the OS and any additional processes that will
be running. Since you do not have sufficient memory to make good use of AWE
memory, do not enable that option.
There are two ways to control how much memory SQL Server uses: the MAX
SERVER MEMORY configuration option and the -g startup parameter. By
default, -g is set for 0.5 MB x number of worker threads (128 MB by default)
+ 256 MB = 384 MB. The -g parameter controls the amount of MEM TO LEAVE in
addition to the worker thread memory reservation and each SQL Server
instance has a separate one.
Since you will not be using AWE, as long as you do not set the WORKING SET
SIZE configuration option, memory allocation will be dynamic. I would keep
the MAX SERVER MEMORY set to Total Physical + 1/2 of the Page file. If both
instances were to failover to the same node, each SQL Server instance would
acquire and release memory as needed.
You could set the MIN SERVER MEMORY configuration option in an attempt to
specify the smallest each instance memory allocation would be in order to
keep either from totally controlling the entire physical allocation.
Something like 500 MB would be sufficient.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Joe K." <JoeK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6DB31B3-053D-46E5-B2D6-7592C831952D@.microsoft.com...
> I have SQL Server 2000 cluster this is Active/Active.
> The server has total 4GB of RAM with Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
> Should the /3GB be applied to the both Active/Active nodes?
> I would like the primary node to get 2.8 GB and the secondary node to get
> 1.2 GB of RAM.
> Please help me with this problem.
> Thank You,
>
>

AD/ SQL Server 2000/ Trusted Connection in .Net

Hi,
I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh database.
I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
security...but I can't.
Sequence of Events:
1. Login to Network using Novell account.
2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
3. Enter AD account details and press OK
4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following code:
visual basic
code:---- Public Function Login() As String
' now create the directory entry to establish connection
Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
Try
' if user is verified then it will welcome then
Try
Return deDirEntry.Username
Catch exp As Exception
Return ""
End Try
Finally
'deDirEntry.Dispose()
End Try
End Function 'Login
----
This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
visual basic
code:----Dim
sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
Catalog=VendorSample;Data
Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
6. I get the following error:
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
Server connection.
I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
username passed as the account I want to use.There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
(Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
function is useless.
In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
fine.
If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
"Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> database.
> I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> security...but I can't.
> Sequence of Events:
> 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> code:
>
> visual basic
> code:----
> Public Function Login() As String
> ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> Try
> ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> Try
> Return deDirEntry.Username
> Catch exp As Exception
> Return ""
> End Try
> Finally
> 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> End Try
> End Function 'Login
> ----
> This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> visual basic
> code:----Dim
> sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
> 6. I get the following error:
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> Server connection.
> I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> username passed as the account I want to use.|||Hi,
If I have logged onto pc/ network using a windows account, will the app
always run using this account? If so, is there any way to change this so that
the app run using an AD account instead? As you've probably guesed, I'm not
well up on Windows/ AD accounts etc. so please explain in very simple terms!!
Thanks.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:
> There are two ways to logging into SQL Server: WIndows Security
> (Trusted_Connection) or SQL Server Security. In either case, your "Login"
> function is useless.
> In your connectionString, you have "Trusted_Connection=True", that implies
> the SQL Server uses Windows security, meaning, you do not need pass
> username/password pair in ConnectionString (even there is user/password,
> they are ignored). That means SQL Server accept the current windows/AD user
> account credential, and then does the authorization based on this
> credential. As long as the the windows/AD user account (which is running
> your app) is given adequate permission to what he needs, the app should run
> fine.
> If you use SQL Server security (it must be enabled), you must have
> user/password pair in the ConnectionString, and SQL Server authenticates it,
> regardless whether you have done it in your own "Login" function or not. SO,
> your "Login" function does nothing usefull here.
>
> "Dec" <Dec@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E608FA02-488A-4E9A-BC5B-9AF816F28F87@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I have a Windows Application, a Novell Network and a SQL Server 2000 on an
> > Active Directory controlled server. My AD account has access to teh
> > database.
> > I want to login to the database using an Active Directory account, trusted
> > security...but I can't.
> > Sequence of Events:
> > 1. Login to Network using Novell account.
> > 2. Start Application and it displays login screen.
> > 3. Enter AD account details and press OK
> > 4. This verifies against Active Directory Account using the following
> > code:
> >
> >
> > visual basic
> > code:----
> > Public Function Login() As String
> > ' now create the directory entry to establish connection
> > Dim deDirEntry As New DirectoryEntry(Me.strDomain, Me.strUser,
> > Me.strPass, Me.atAuthentType)
> > Try
> >
> > ' if user is verified then it will welcome then
> > Try
> > Return deDirEntry.Username
> > Catch exp As Exception
> > Return ""
> > End Try
> > Finally
> > 'deDirEntry.Dispose()
> > End Try
> > End Function 'Login
> > ----
> >
> > This all works fine and returns the username if the credentials match
> > 5. Make database connection string (sUserName is the AD username):
> >
> > visual basic
> > code:----Dim
> > sConnstring As String = "User ID=" & sUserName & ";Initial
> > Catalog=VendorSample;Data
> > Source=MyServer...;Timeout=20;Trusted_Connection=True"----
> > 6. I get the following error:
> > Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated witha trusted SQl
> > Server connection.
> >
> > I'm not well up on how AD works etc. but does anybody have any idea how to
> > get past this? I presume the problem is that it is not recognising the
> > username passed as the account I want to use.
>
>

AD synchronization interval with SQL Server

Hi. Please help.
Background:
A user changes their Active Directory windows password on logon and then
attempts to connect to SQL Server but fails. Once a manual synchronisation o
f
the windows accounts on SQL server are done then the user can authenticate
again.
Question:
How long does AD take to auto synchronise with SQL (or vice versa)? Can this
value be changed? How?
Many thanksMorne wrote:

> Background:
> A user changes their Active Directory windows password on logon and then
> attempts to connect to SQL Server but fails. Once a manual synchronisation
> of
> the windows accounts on SQL server are done then the user can authenticate
> again.
> Question:
> How long does AD take to auto synchronise with SQL (or vice versa)? Can
> this
> value be changed? How?
I believe the delay is due to AD replication. The DC that SQL Server used
for authentication must not have been the DC the user authenticated to and
the new password had not yet replicated. Perhaps the SQL Server is in
another site. I don't know of a solution, other than to force replication,
perhaps with the repadmin utility on the DC (which is not of help to the
user).
Richard Mueller
Microsoft MVP Scripting and ADSI
Hilltop Lab - http://www.rlmueller.net
--|||Thanks Richard
I'll look into it. Appreciated.
Morne
"Richard Mueller [MVP]" wrote:

> Morne wrote:
>
> I believe the delay is due to AD replication. The DC that SQL Server used
> for authentication must not have been the DC the user authenticated to and
> the new password had not yet replicated. Perhaps the SQL Server is in
> another site. I don't know of a solution, other than to force replication,
> perhaps with the repadmin utility on the DC (which is not of help to the
> user).
> --
> Richard Mueller
> Microsoft MVP Scripting and ADSI
> Hilltop Lab - http://www.rlmueller.net
> --
>
>

AD Groups

Our customer is using Windows Authentication to connect to SQL 2000. They
added their Active Directory group to the SQL logins but can not connect to
SQL 2000. For a test they added the individual domain user to an SQL login
and they can connect. For some reason they can not use their AD group to
connect to SQL 2000. Then they added local admin privledge to the AD group
and they can now connect. Do you have to have local admin privledge on an A
D
group to connet to SQL 2000? How can they remove that privledge and still
connect with thier AD group SQL login'
Thanks
RyanHi,
please refer following links :
www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shw...and-SQL-2K.html
www.flatmtn.com/computer/Linux-LDAP.html
www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Arti...841/pg/2/2.html
www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-sof...0/msg00304.html
http://forums.devshed.com/archive/t...s-ms-sql-server
:-)
Regards
Andy Davis
Activecrypt Team
---SQL Server Encryption Software
http://www.activecrypt.com
"Ryan" wrote:

> Our customer is using Windows Authentication to connect to SQL 2000. They
> added their Active Directory group to the SQL logins but can not connect t
o
> SQL 2000. For a test they added the individual domain user to an SQL logi
n
> and they can connect. For some reason they can not use their AD group to
> connect to SQL 2000. Then they added local admin privledge to the AD grou
p
> and they can now connect. Do you have to have local admin privledge on an
AD
> group to connet to SQL 2000? How can they remove that privledge and still
> connect with thier AD group SQL login'
> Thanks
> Ryan

AD

Is there anyway to pull data out of Active Directory and into say a SQL
table.

Like a user list...

Any examples..."AHartman" <Hoosbruin@.Kconline.com> wrote in message
news:Rs6dnWmnsYCnVfDcRVn-qQ@.kconline.com...
> Is there anyway to pull data out of Active Directory and into say a SQL
> table.
> Like a user list...
>
> Any examples...

There's an OLE DB provider for Active Directory, so you should be able to
create a linked server:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...%40TK2MSFTNGP12

Simon

ActiveX Vbscript still ok in Yukon ?

Will I still be able to use my current VBscripts (Active X) code in dts
packages in Yukon ?Hi
In SQL Server 2005, there is an optional install of the SQL Server 2000 DTS
engine. this will allow the existing scripts to work (as long as you don't
use any T-SQL that is no longer supported in SQL Server 2005).
The new DTS engine in SQL Server 2005 is amazing and you will be very
tempted to convert your existing packages ASAP to the new engine.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Rob C" <rwc1960@.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:I81xd.21621$rO2.720@.bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Will I still be able to use my current VBscripts (Active X) code in dts
> packages in Yukon ?
>