| Author |
Topic |
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-10-28 : 10:32:44
|
| I was wondering if anyone has ever done this and if they had any problems with it:Consolidate multiple SQL Server default instances onto a single server by setting up a one-node cluster and creating multiple SQL instances.The objecting would be reduced hardware cost, as opposed to the usual need for high availability, and to not have to modify the applications to point at new server names.CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-12 : 16:48:55
|
| done it and no problems, 10 instances if I remember correctlybut the apps conn would need to be modified to point to a new server name because the instances would be named instances, or maybe I misunderstood that part--------------------keeping it simple... |
 |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-12 : 17:24:35
|
| My reason for using a cluster was to be able to give the instance the same name as when it was on a standalone server and to have multiple instances on one server.It is meant to be a workaround to not have to change any of the application connection strings to point at new server names.Aliases are not that practical when there are hundreds or thousands of workstations, and you don’t know which ones are running a particular application. Not to mention Web servers, reporting servers, DTS or IIS packages running on other servers, linked servers, etc.If there was a way to give the instance a different name than the servername\instancename convention, that would be ideal, but I don't know of another way to do this than a cluster (or a VM).CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-12 : 18:10:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkizer
You don't need a cluster for that, you can use a standalone server along with a DNS alias. The DNS server would redirect the connections to the new server. We use DNS aliases quite a bit. Old Name:Server1\Instance1New Name:Server2\Instance1DNS Alias:Redirect Server1 to Server2Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/Subscribe to my blog
In my case, I want to consolidate 2 or more servers onto one:Server1 (default instance)Server2 (default instance)Server2 (default instance)I would not be able to redirect to a different instances on the same server via DNS, because it will not point to a particular instance.NewServer\NamedInstance1 to replace Server1 (default instance)NewServer\NamedInstance2 to replace Server2 (default instance)NewServer\NamedInstance3 to replace Server3 (default instance)However, with a cluster (single node or multi-node), I would just be able to give each instance the same name and IP address as the old server.I am not planning on doing this at this time, but just wanted to see if anyone had, and what problems they had.CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-12 : 18:44:09
|
| I guess I'm confused then. On a cluster, you can only have one default instance, so I don't see how it solves your problem. I see that you've said named instances, I'm just confused how a named instance will replace the default instances. I don't see how it can be accomplished without at least a client alias.For instance, let's take your first example: NewServer\NamedInstance1 to replace Server1 (default instance). I assume the clients are using Server1 in the connection strings. You can certainly install Server1 onto a cluster, but without an alias or a redirect it won't be able to find Server1 when it's actually Server1\NamedInstance1. A client alias would address that, by saying Server1 will go to Server1,PortNumber or Server1\NamedInstance1.I could be completely misunderstanding your post though.Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/Subscribe to my blog |
|
|
|
jeffw8713
Aged Yak Warrior
819 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-13 : 21:40:17
|
| Take a look at HP's PolyServe clustering solution. This solution will allow you to move default instances - and will allow you to keep the old name and 'default' instance connectivity.Not sure about Veritas - or any other clustering solution, so you would have to research those.Other than doing something like this, you are going to have to update all connection strings regardless of whether or not you use a cluster. Because each instance is a default instance - moving it to a MS cluster does not avoid that. Only the default instance in the cluster can be referenced as a default instance, all other instances are named instances and would have to be called from your applications that way.Jeff |
|
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2010-11-16 : 16:09:40
|
| veritas cluster requires named instances--------------------keeping it simple... |
|
|
|
|
Cluster for Consolidation