I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am tryin
g
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer
.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks lik
e
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Bina
ry
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am try
ing
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for
my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the th
e
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can s
ee
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyz
er.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks l
ike
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
Showing posts with label node. Show all posts
Showing posts with label node. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Binary sort order and clustering
I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
drives.
On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
status just says "Online Pending".
If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
be doing wrong?Never mind. It was something besides adding the drive and nothing to do with
the collation.
"Kathi Kellenberger" wrote:
> I am trying to create a four node cluster. One of my instances has a Binary
> sort order. The SQL Server cluster install and SP4 worked. Now I am trying
> to add additional drives for SQL Server to use. I am able to do this for my
> case insensitive instances, and those SQL Server instances can see the
> drives.
> On the Binary instance, once I add the drive and try to bring the instance
> back online, SQL Server will not come back up. In cluster manager, the
> status just says "Online Pending".
> If I go to the services applet and try to start it, I get a message the the
> service started and stopped. The instance will failover to another node.
> The error log actually looks like SQL Server is still running, and I can see
> sqlservr.exe in Task Manager. I can also connect to it using Query Analyzer.
> When I run this: "select * from ::fn_servershareddrives()", the correct
> drive letters show up in the results. From Enterprise Manager, It looks like
> the instance is stopped. I can also navigate to the drive.
> Has anyone successfully clustered a case sensitive instance? What could I
> be doing wrong?
>
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Binaries not push to the other Node on SQL Server 2000 installatio
I have a SQL Server 2000 active/active cluster with Windows 2003 server.
What would cause the binaries not to be pushed to the Node on a SQL Server
2000 virtual server installation?
Thanks,
What is the issue? If the binaries were not copied on the other node, I would recommend reviewing the setup logs. They will have detailed information.
If you are installing a virtual SQL Server 2000 instance then review
sqlstp.log (on the node where you ran the setup)
sqlstpN.log (where N is an integer -- on the node where you ran the setup)
sqlstpN.log (where N is an integer -- on the other node)
This will help you understand what happened during the installation.
If it was a service pack installation then the files are sqlsp.log and sqlspN.log
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
sql
What would cause the binaries not to be pushed to the Node on a SQL Server
2000 virtual server installation?
Thanks,
What is the issue? If the binaries were not copied on the other node, I would recommend reviewing the setup logs. They will have detailed information.
If you are installing a virtual SQL Server 2000 instance then review
sqlstp.log (on the node where you ran the setup)
sqlstpN.log (where N is an integer -- on the node where you ran the setup)
sqlstpN.log (where N is an integer -- on the other node)
This will help you understand what happened during the installation.
If it was a service pack installation then the files are sqlsp.log and sqlspN.log
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
sql
Sunday, March 11, 2012
bi-directional vs updatable subscriptions
Bi-directional replication strictly speaking is where you have data
modification on any node moving to all nodes in a system, it includes merge
replication, bi-directional transactional replication, snapshot replication
with immediate updating, snapshot replication with queued updating,
transactional replication with
immediate updating, transactional replication with queued updating, and peer
to peer replication.
I am ignoring immediate updating with queued failover here.
Now, let me climb down from my soap box,
bi-directional transactional replication doesn't scale well to multiple
nodes, it locks you into a schema, but there are no schema modifications.
Immediate uses MSDTS (distributed transactions) which is not resilient to
network hicupps, and adds latency to all DML originating on the subscriber.
It adds a guid column to each table you are replicating, it is not really
scalable beyond 10 subscribers, and it will log conflicts but not allow you
to roll them back. It is best used when the majority of the DML originates
on the published. Queued updating uses a queue to replicate DML, it is not
scalable beyond 10 subscribers, adds a guid column to every table you are
replicating, adds latency to all DML originating on the subscriber, and is
best used when the majority of the DML originates on the publisher.
Conflicts are logged but cannot be rolled back.
Merge replication is designed for large numbers of subscribes, works well
when the majority of the DML originates on the publisher or subscriber, has
rich conflict logging and resolution, and adds a guid column to every table
you are replicating.
I use bi-directional replication in DR environments where it can work well,
keeping in mind there is no automatic failover and you are locked into a
schema.
HTH
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Rob" <Rob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C060D84-80E7-4754-B1B0-6280E64ADDFE@.microsoft.com...
> What is the difference between Bi-directional and Updatable Subscriptions
> Transactional Replication? Conceptually, they seem to be the same... or
> are
> they?
No, most of it is experience
The caveats about where the majority of the DML occurs is documented. Have a
look at these links for more info.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa237486(SQL.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa237271(sql.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa237346(SQL.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa256086(SQL.80).aspx
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Rob" <Rob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E39CB8A-06F6-4318-A3A2-00948098CC07@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Wow! Thank you for taking the time to explain this so well.
> Just wondering on the some of the limitation that you had mentioned. For
> instance, "...not scalable beyond 10 subscribers"; "...locks you into a
> schema, but there are no schema modifications". Is that documented
> anywhere
> in BOL and/or on Microsoft's website where more info on those limitations
> are
> discussed in depth?
> Thanks again.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
modification on any node moving to all nodes in a system, it includes merge
replication, bi-directional transactional replication, snapshot replication
with immediate updating, snapshot replication with queued updating,
transactional replication with
immediate updating, transactional replication with queued updating, and peer
to peer replication.
I am ignoring immediate updating with queued failover here.
Now, let me climb down from my soap box,
bi-directional transactional replication doesn't scale well to multiple
nodes, it locks you into a schema, but there are no schema modifications.
Immediate uses MSDTS (distributed transactions) which is not resilient to
network hicupps, and adds latency to all DML originating on the subscriber.
It adds a guid column to each table you are replicating, it is not really
scalable beyond 10 subscribers, and it will log conflicts but not allow you
to roll them back. It is best used when the majority of the DML originates
on the published. Queued updating uses a queue to replicate DML, it is not
scalable beyond 10 subscribers, adds a guid column to every table you are
replicating, adds latency to all DML originating on the subscriber, and is
best used when the majority of the DML originates on the publisher.
Conflicts are logged but cannot be rolled back.
Merge replication is designed for large numbers of subscribes, works well
when the majority of the DML originates on the publisher or subscriber, has
rich conflict logging and resolution, and adds a guid column to every table
you are replicating.
I use bi-directional replication in DR environments where it can work well,
keeping in mind there is no automatic failover and you are locked into a
schema.
HTH
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Rob" <Rob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C060D84-80E7-4754-B1B0-6280E64ADDFE@.microsoft.com...
> What is the difference between Bi-directional and Updatable Subscriptions
> Transactional Replication? Conceptually, they seem to be the same... or
> are
> they?
No, most of it is experience
The caveats about where the majority of the DML occurs is documented. Have a
look at these links for more info.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa237486(SQL.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa237271(sql.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa237346(SQL.80).aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa256086(SQL.80).aspx
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Rob" <Rob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E39CB8A-06F6-4318-A3A2-00948098CC07@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Wow! Thank you for taking the time to explain this so well.
> Just wondering on the some of the limitation that you had mentioned. For
> instance, "...not scalable beyond 10 subscribers"; "...locks you into a
> schema, but there are no schema modifications". Is that documented
> anywhere
> in BOL and/or on Microsoft's website where more info on those limitations
> are
> discussed in depth?
> Thanks again.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)