| Author |
Message |
Huw
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group on the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Wilwol
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:34 am Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
what you have described is a typical N+1 configuration.
dw
--
Hope it helps
dw
_______________________________
Don Wilwol
donwilwol(DELETE)@yahoo.com
http://spaces.msn.com/members/wilwol/
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uOcWqDxFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you
could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the
following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups
listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group on
the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
As Don pointed out you indeed do this today. Configure the possible owner
for the resource.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/advanced/help/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/advanced/help/cluad_pr_27.htm
(this really applies to either 2000 or 2003)
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uOcWqDxFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you
could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the
following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups
listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group on
the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Toner [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
You can use preferred owners to setup the groups to failover to your SPARE
node first, and you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node.
You might want to review the following KB article for more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296799
Regards,
John
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uOcWqDxFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you
could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the
following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups
listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group on
the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huw
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
Thanks very much...
So if you can't actually block two nodes from failing over to the spare.
How much use is this in practice?
Huw
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eXCfYBFyFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | You can use preferred owners to setup the groups to failover to your SPARE
node first, and you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help
prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this
from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node.
You might want to review the following KB article for more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296799
Regards,
John
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uOcWqDxFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you
could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the
following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups
listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group on
the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
I do it on one of our production clusters. Since you have to have at least a
3 node cluster, I don't think its that popular.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ugqh0uMyFHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Thanks very much...
So if you can't actually block two nodes from failing over to the spare.
How much use is this in practice?
Huw
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eXCfYBFyFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You can use preferred owners to setup the groups to failover to your
SPARE
node first, and you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help
prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this
from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node.
You might want to review the following KB article for more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296799
Regards,
John
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23uOcWqDxFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi All,
I've a question on MSCS and N+1 configuration I was hoping one of you
could
help with...
Do you know if it's possible to set up an N+1 configuration in the
following
way.
Here is the scenario:
We have 3 Servers, NODE1, NODE2 and NODE3
We also have a spare node SPARE
We then have 3 different resource groups
ResourceGroup1 can run on NODE1 and SPARE
ResourceGroup2 can run on NODE2 and SPARE
ResourceGroup3 can run on NODE3 and SPARE
It it possible to configure it so that any one of the Resource Groups
listed
above can failover to the spare, but not more than one resource group
on
the
same node at the same time?
I couldn't find anything in the Cluster Administrator in 2003, is this
functionality available or coming in a future version?
Thanks,
Huw
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ugqh0uMyFHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Thanks very much...
So if you can't actually block two nodes from failing over to the spare.
How much use is this in practice?
|
It is very useful in practice. While each EVS can fail to the passive node,
both existing EVS's can't fail over at the same time to the passive node.
The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by the
remaining node.
This is by design.
The likelihood of two EVSs failing to the passive node at the same time
should be incredibly small.
--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Website
http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp - New Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/russkaufmann - Old Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huw
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
Thanks All for the input, very useful.
A query from earier in the thread....
John Toner says...
"...you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node"
But you say (Russ)...
"...The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by
the
remaining node."
I was just wondering which one of these is true, or am i misunderstanding
something?
Many thanks,
Huw
"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@exchangemct.com> wrote in message
news:e$gakJQyFHA.3588@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | "Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ugqh0uMyFHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Thanks very much...
So if you can't actually block two nodes from failing over to the spare.
How much use is this in practice?
It is very useful in practice. While each EVS can fail to the passive
node,
both existing EVS's can't fail over at the same time to the passive node.
The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by the
remaining node.
This is by design.
The likelihood of two EVSs failing to the passive node at the same time
should be incredibly small.
--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Website
http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp - New Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/russkaufmann - Old Blog
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck Timon [MSFT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
The only resource that cannot be prevented from coming online on a node that
is available, even if it is in a 'Paused' state is the quorum drive.
--
Chuck Timon, Jr.
Microsoft Corporation
CCS Beta Engineer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OElSZ5xyFHA.3312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Thanks All for the input, very useful.
A query from earier in the thread....
John Toner says...
"...you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this
from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node"
But you say (Russ)...
"...The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by
the
remaining node."
I was just wondering which one of these is true, or am i misunderstanding
something?
Many thanks,
Huw
"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@exchangemct.com> wrote in message
news:e$gakJQyFHA.3588@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ugqh0uMyFHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Thanks very much...
So if you can't actually block two nodes from failing over to the
spare.
How much use is this in practice?
It is very useful in practice. While each EVS can fail to the passive
node,
both existing EVS's can't fail over at the same time to the passive node.
The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by the
remaining node.
This is by design.
The likelihood of two EVSs failing to the passive node at the same time
should be incredibly small.
--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Website
http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp - New Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/russkaufmann - Old Blog
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: N+1 Configuration Clustering Question |
|
|
"Huw" <huw@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OElSZ5xyFHA.3312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Thanks All for the input, very useful.
A query from earier in the thread....
John Toner says...
"...you can use AntiAffinityClassNames property to help prevent
groups from coming online on the same node, but you cannot prevent this
from
happening. If the cluster has no alternatives, it will bring the groups
online on the same node"
But you say (Russ)...
"...The second EVS will just fail completely and will not be picked up by
the
remaining node."
I was just wondering which one of these is true, or am i misunderstanding
something?
|
Both.
It depends on the number of passive nodes. If you have multiple passive
nodes in a large cluster, you can use the AntiAffinityClassNames to try to
prevent an EVS from failing to a particular node. However, with a cluster
with only one passive node, you can only have one failed EVS move to the
passive node and start running there. If there is another failure of an EVS,
it will just fail as there are no passive nodes available. It will not
(except in a two node cluster) allow two EVSs to run on the same node.
--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Website
http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp - New Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/russkaufmann - Old Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in