|Subject:||Adding a third NODE to an existing SQl server 2000 CLUSTER|
|Posted by:||RK (…@discussions.microsoft.com)|
|Date:||Mon, 16 Apr 2007|
Currently we have an ACTIVE/ACTIVE SQL Server 2000 cluster in our production
environment. The current configuration is such that each node has a dedicated
server hardware. Lets call one of the ACTIVE nodes as NODE1 and the other
ACTIVE node as NODE2. We are in the planning stages of a SQL Server 2005,
side by side upgrade. Also we are planning to introduce a new server hardware
into the equation to help the upgrade process so that the performance is not
affected. The way we want to use the new SQl server hardware is to have both
a SQl Server 2000 instance and a SQl Server 2005 instance in this new
hardware, lets call this NODE3. The databases for all the SQl servers will be
presented via a SAN.
(1)NODE2 will have another instance of SQl 2005 installed into it.
(2)The SQL 2005 instance of the NODE2 needs to be clustered with the SQL
2005 instance in the NODE3 as an ACTIVE-ACTIVE cluster.
(3)The SQL 2000 instance of the NODE2 then needs to be clustered with the
SQL 2000 instance in the NODE 1.
If the above was technically possible then the SQl 2005 databases will be
load balanced between NODE2 and NODE3 and the SQL 2000 databases will be load
balanced between NODE 1 and NODE 2. Eventually when we move all of the SQl
2000 databases to SQl 2005 then the SQl 2000 Server instances will be
upgraded to SQl 2005 as well.
So eventually we would end up with 2 ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster of SQl 2005
Servers in 3 dedicated server hardware.
Am I dreaming here ? Or is this technically feasible. Any thoughts are
welcome. Any other alternatives are also welcome.
Many Thanks in advance.