Clustered SQL 2000 and MSDE

I'm reviewing a plan put forward by a colleague for a 3-node Windows 2003
cluster hosting a single SQL Server 2000 (for now), and a clustered
fileshare. Each role would ideally run on it's own server. The third node
would only come into play in the event of failure of either of the first two.
The plan is for the third (normally idle) node to have Backup Exec installed
on it, not in a cluster-aware configuration, but as a standalone application,
which could then be used to backup the other servers.
My concern is the MSDE used by Backup Exec as a local data repository. How
would this interact with the installation of SQL 2000? Are there any caveats,
gotchas, no-no's we should be aware of?
Problems. The third node would need to be clustered, if you want to use it
for failover.
As far as I know you should not/can't run MSDE and SQL 2000 on the same
machine. BackupExec can use SQL for its DB.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"David Cornes" <David Cornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B011807F-68E7-4D49-AC33-74415178E116@.microsoft.com...
> I'm reviewing a plan put forward by a colleague for a 3-node Windows 2003
> cluster hosting a single SQL Server 2000 (for now), and a clustered
> fileshare. Each role would ideally run on it's own server. The third node
> would only come into play in the event of failure of either of the first
> two.
> The plan is for the third (normally idle) node to have Backup Exec
> installed
> on it, not in a cluster-aware configuration, but as a standalone
> application,
> which could then be used to backup the other servers.
> My concern is the MSDE used by Backup Exec as a local data repository. How
> would this interact with the installation of SQL 2000? Are there any
> caveats,
> gotchas, no-no's we should be aware of?
|||The thirds node WILL be clustered for the purposes of hosting SQL Server and
the file share(s), but Backup Exec WON'T be installed into a cluster group,
and won't be able to move between the nodes.
You say MSDE and SQL 2000 can't exist on the same server? That was my
concern. Although BE could use the clustered SQL Server, Veritas recommend
using a separate data store for the application to the one(s) you wish to
back up.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> Problems. The third node would need to be clustered, if you want to use it
> for failover.
> As far as I know you should not/can't run MSDE and SQL 2000 on the same
> machine. BackupExec can use SQL for its DB.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "David Cornes" <David Cornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B011807F-68E7-4D49-AC33-74415178E116@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Got it, I was not sure if you were really taking 3 node cluster or not.
I have configured BE with the database on SQL and it works fine. I would not
even try to run MSDE. I actually don't even like running BE on a clustered
node. I like to run it from another machine and use a dedicated backup
network. The BE network compression is very good.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"David Cornes" <DavidCornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6C932AFA-46F6-494C-851D-0400E35F0DB6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The thirds node WILL be clustered for the purposes of hosting SQL Server
> and
> the file share(s), but Backup Exec WON'T be installed into a cluster
> group,
> and won't be able to move between the nodes.
> You say MSDE and SQL 2000 can't exist on the same server? That was my
> concern. Although BE could use the clustered SQL Server, Veritas recommend
> using a separate data store for the application to the one(s) you wish to
> back up.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||A separate server would be my preferred approach too, but I wanted to get
some technical ammo before suggesting it. I'll show this thread to the TA...
;-)
Thanks for your help.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> Got it, I was not sure if you were really taking 3 node cluster or not.
> I have configured BE with the database on SQL and it works fine. I would not
> even try to run MSDE. I actually don't even like running BE on a clustered
> node. I like to run it from another machine and use a dedicated backup
> network. The BE network compression is very good.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "David Cornes" <DavidCornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6C932AFA-46F6-494C-851D-0400E35F0DB6@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If you want, they can even call me, email me for the number.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"David Cornes" <DavidCornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4AA76D9-A48E-407D-A001-E18DE3C242B6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>A separate server would be my preferred approach too, but I wanted to get
> some technical ammo before suggesting it. I'll show this thread to the
> TA...
> ;-)
> Thanks for your help.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I strongly prefer to have a console and management server for a big cluster.
That server hosts management and monitoring tools, backup file shares, tape
libraries, and anything else I need to support the cluster. Because many of
the tools I use require a SQL server back end, I go ahead and run Standard
Edition SQL server on the box. I have found such a system a key component
of a total high-availability solution.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Cornes" <DavidCornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4AA76D9-A48E-407D-A001-E18DE3C242B6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>A separate server would be my preferred approach too, but I wanted to get
> some technical ammo before suggesting it. I'll show this thread to the
> TA...
> ;-)
> Thanks for your help.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I have had several customers running Backup Exec with the Backup Exec local
instance of SQL being MSDE with no issues.
I would recomend that database be upgraded to a normal SQL Server edtion if
possible, the only issue is licencing for the addtional SQL instance.
In either case I can recomend you keeping an eye on and possibiy limit the
memory usage of the BE instance as I have had the memory usage get quite
high and when you need to fail the clustered instance over there is memory
contention on startup.
If you are using LAN-free backups (ie backups via the SAN) you may want to
spend some effort on clustering the Backup Exec, if your are installing it
on the cluster anyway.
Regards
Gary Hope
iSolve Business Solutions
"David Cornes" <DavidCornes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B011807F-68E7-4D49-AC33-74415178E116@.microsoft.com...
> I'm reviewing a plan put forward by a colleague for a 3-node Windows 2003
> cluster hosting a single SQL Server 2000 (for now), and a clustered
> fileshare. Each role would ideally run on it's own server. The third node
> would only come into play in the event of failure of either of the first
> two.
> The plan is for the third (normally idle) node to have Backup Exec
> installed
> on it, not in a cluster-aware configuration, but as a standalone
> application,
> which could then be used to backup the other servers.
> My concern is the MSDE used by Backup Exec as a local data repository. How
> would this interact with the installation of SQL 2000? Are there any
> caveats,
> gotchas, no-no's we should be aware of?