| Author |
Message |
Jim
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:37 pm Post subject:
Newbie Question |
|
|
I am helping design a server room for a customer that wants high
availability of all services and he wants to physically separate services.
His suggestion was clustering two exchange servers together, two sql servers
together, two application servers together, two file servers together, etc.
My personal opinion is that fault tolerance of the services is the priority
as there are only 35 clients at present (with a potential for up to 100 over
the next five years).
Is clustering the right solution for this customer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am Post subject:
Re: Newbie Question |
|
|
I love clustering, I earn a living off of it. I love technology. I love
creating and using the latest things. That said, does the customer want High
Availability? Can they afford it? Support it? 35-100 users is not a lot, not
by a long shot. Creating a huge cluster or several small clusters for all
those services just seems wrong. Did you work up a quote for all this
equipment and software? Nice 6 figures.
What about off site backup, with a vendor supplying backup replacement
hardware?
Please tell us what they/you decide.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jim" <not@home.now> wrote in message
news:uJ2WOLf4EHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I am helping design a server room for a customer that wants high
availability of all services and he wants to physically separate services.
His suggestion was clustering two exchange servers together, two sql
servers together, two application servers together, two file servers
together, etc. My personal opinion is that fault tolerance of the services
is the priority as there are only 35 clients at present (with a potential
for up to 100 over the next five years).
Is clustering the right solution for this customer?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:00 am Post subject:
Re: Newbie Question |
|
|
It seems like overkill to me to have clustering in this customers
environment, but I am researching what the customer wants. They have no
critical LOB apps that would kill them if they experienced downtime.
I had suggested the customer look into clustering several nodes together
such as Exchange, SQL, File, Print, and Apps. As I understand clustering,
one node in the server acts as a primary for its function (Exchange) and
another can be set up as a backup or failover function. So maybe the
Exchange server is also a backup for File and Print... and the File and
Print sever is also a backup for the SQL... the SQL is also a backup for the
Apps... the Apps is also a backup for the Exchange. Am I on the right track
because this would reduce the need for a lot of additional hardware. Also,
is there any real concern for having Exchange and SQL setup in a two node
cluster? The customer has suggested that he would never put Exchange and
SQL on the same box as if it were a sacrilege. The only reason I know of
for separating the two is strictly for the separation of services for
resource utilization issues.
As for your other questions... I am drawing up a "shoot the moon" scenario
that will be parsed back after submission of the plan based on cost. I am
trying be prepared for round two since I feel the first round will be shot
down based on cost of implementation. The customer is a VAR that builds
it's own branded hardware. Backup is provided via the typical grandfather
tape method.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OLwj1Vj4EHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I love clustering, I earn a living off of it. I love technology. I love
creating and using the latest things. That said, does the customer want
High Availability? Can they afford it? Support it? 35-100 users is not a
lot, not by a long shot. Creating a huge cluster or several small clusters
for all those services just seems wrong. Did you work up a quote for all
this equipment and software? Nice 6 figures.
What about off site backup, with a vendor supplying backup replacement
hardware?
Please tell us what they/you decide.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jim" <not@home.now> wrote in message
news:uJ2WOLf4EHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I am helping design a server room for a customer that wants high
availability of all services and he wants to physically separate services.
His suggestion was clustering two exchange servers together, two sql
servers together, two application servers together, two file servers
together, etc. My personal opinion is that fault tolerance of the services
is the priority as there are only 35 clients at present (with a potential
for up to 100 over the next five years).
Is clustering the right solution for this customer?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:59 am Post subject:
Re: Newbie Question |
|
|
You could create a cluster with one node for Exchange, SQL, File, Print, and
two Passive (Spares configured for everything). This 6 node cluster would
work fine. But the cost, that is what I think will probably kill the deal.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jim" <not@home.now> wrote in message
news:OXdlXht4EHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | It seems like overkill to me to have clustering in this customers
environment, but I am researching what the customer wants. They have no
critical LOB apps that would kill them if they experienced downtime.
I had suggested the customer look into clustering several nodes together
such as Exchange, SQL, File, Print, and Apps. As I understand clustering,
one node in the server acts as a primary for its function (Exchange) and
another can be set up as a backup or failover function. So maybe the
Exchange server is also a backup for File and Print... and the File and
Print sever is also a backup for the SQL... the SQL is also a backup for
the Apps... the Apps is also a backup for the Exchange. Am I on the right
track because this would reduce the need for a lot of additional hardware.
Also, is there any real concern for having Exchange and SQL setup in a two
node cluster? The customer has suggested that he would never put Exchange
and SQL on the same box as if it were a sacrilege. The only reason I know
of for separating the two is strictly for the separation of services for
resource utilization issues.
As for your other questions... I am drawing up a "shoot the moon" scenario
that will be parsed back after submission of the plan based on cost. I am
trying be prepared for round two since I feel the first round will be shot
down based on cost of implementation. The customer is a VAR that builds
it's own branded hardware. Backup is provided via the typical grandfather
tape method.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OLwj1Vj4EHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I love clustering, I earn a living off of it. I love technology. I love
creating and using the latest things. That said, does the customer want
High Availability? Can they afford it? Support it? 35-100 users is not a
lot, not by a long shot. Creating a huge cluster or several small clusters
for all those services just seems wrong. Did you work up a quote for all
this equipment and software? Nice 6 figures.
What about off site backup, with a vendor supplying backup replacement
hardware?
Please tell us what they/you decide.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Jim" <not@home.now> wrote in message
news:uJ2WOLf4EHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I am helping design a server room for a customer that wants high
availability of all services and he wants to physically separate
services.
His suggestion was clustering two exchange servers together, two sql
servers together, two application servers together, two file servers
together, etc. My personal opinion is that fault tolerance of the
services
is the priority as there are only 35 clients at present (with a potential
for up to 100 over the next five years).
Is clustering the right solution for this customer?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jo K
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Newbie Question |
|
|
Jim,
For what you are trying to accomplish clustering is overkill and
expensive. Look at NSI or Neverfail group. Cheaper, quicker and less
complex. Clustering has a place and time, but doesn't sound like you
need the complexity
www.nsisoftwrae.com
www.neverfailgroup.com
Jo K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in