Normally, clustering is setup as a 1-to-1 relationship between active and
passive nodes, at least that is my understanding. We have a situation where
we are being asked to setup a 2 active node, 1 passive node environment.
Here's the question - if one of the active nodes fails, it fails over to the
passive node. Now what happens if the 2nd active node fails? Will the other
active node (originally the passive node) handle the failover or will it try
to failover to the first active node that failed or will the whole thing just
grind to a screeching halt? I know we can setup a 2 active/ 2passive node
setup, but we wanted to research the 2-to-1 possibility as well.
Thanks!
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
Hi
You don't need a 1:1 relationship between nodes.
And forget the terms active / passive, it is totally out of date and does
not describe SQL Server 2000/2005 clustering.
You have an instance of SQL Server running on an node.
If you have 2 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes at any one time. If
you had 3 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes, at any one time.
If you have 2 nodes, one sits around waiting for a failover. If you have 3
nodes, 2 sit around waiting for a failover.
If you have more than one SQL Server instance running on the cluster, then
the instances can run on any of the nodes.
The instances could be all running on the same node, or dispersed over the
various nodes.
Quite often, people run with 3 nodes and 2 instances or 4 nodes with 3
instances. There is nothing stopping you running 3 instances on 3 nodes, 4
instances on 4 nodes, or any combination of up to 16 instances over 4 nodes.
You just need to make sure that you have enough resources, that in worst
case, one node could run all instances.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Michael G via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:541CE6C54F90F@.droptable.com...
> Normally, clustering is setup as a 1-to-1 relationship between active and
> passive nodes, at least that is my understanding. We have a situation
> where
> we are being asked to setup a 2 active node, 1 passive node environment.
> Here's the question - if one of the active nodes fails, it fails over to
> the
> passive node. Now what happens if the 2nd active node fails? Will the
> other
> active node (originally the passive node) handle the failover or will it
> try
> to failover to the first active node that failed or will the whole thing
> just
> grind to a screeching halt? I know we can setup a 2 active/ 2passive node
> setup, but we wanted to research the 2-to-1 possibility as well.
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
|||Very helpful. Question: So now, even with RAID 10, the single point of
failure becomes the shared drive array? How does one go about creating a
failover for this?
Respectfully,
Michael Wiederhold
michael@.auctionarms.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:%230j6BCZtFHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> You don't need a 1:1 relationship between nodes.
> And forget the terms active / passive, it is totally out of date and does
> not describe SQL Server 2000/2005 clustering.
> You have an instance of SQL Server running on an node.
> If you have 2 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes at any one time.
> If you had 3 nodes, it could run on any of those nodes, at any one time.
> If you have 2 nodes, one sits around waiting for a failover. If you have 3
> nodes, 2 sit around waiting for a failover.
> If you have more than one SQL Server instance running on the cluster, then
> the instances can run on any of the nodes.
> The instances could be all running on the same node, or dispersed over the
> various nodes.
> Quite often, people run with 3 nodes and 2 instances or 4 nodes with 3
> instances. There is nothing stopping you running 3 instances on 3 nodes, 4
> instances on 4 nodes, or any combination of up to 16 instances over 4
> nodes. You just need to make sure that you have enough resources, that in
> worst case, one node could run all instances.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Michael G via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
> news:541CE6C54F90F@.droptable.com...
>
|||Hi
Most high end SAN's have a block level copy mechanism so that you can
"mirror" that data to another SAN, preferably at another location.
EMC has SRDF that can run synchronous or asynchronous over fast WAN links.
Tape backups must never be forgotten either.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"michael wiederhold" <michael@.auctionarms.com> wrote in message
news:%23RhSzuztFHA.3068@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Very helpful. Question: So now, even with RAID 10, the single point of
> failure becomes the shared drive array? How does one go about creating a
> failover for this?
> Respectfully,
> Michael Wiederhold
> michael@.auctionarms.com
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:%230j6BCZtFHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks. Really do appreciate your participation in this newsgroup.
Respectfully,
Michael Wiederhold
michael@.auctionarms.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:ONHGyz8tFHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Most high end SAN's have a block level copy mechanism so that you can
> "mirror" that data to another SAN, preferably at another location.
> EMC has SRDF that can run synchronous or asynchronous over fast WAN links.
> Tape backups must never be forgotten either.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "michael wiederhold" <michael@.auctionarms.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RhSzuztFHA.3068@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
Showing posts with label nodes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nodes. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Clustering Service not starting right away on One Node
I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
The other node is perfectly fine.
Hi
If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
server depends on) take a long to come online?
I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
high SAN activity.
Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
done it's recovery steps?
This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
admin during the failover.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
> server depends on) take a long to come online?
> I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
> high SAN activity.
> Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
> done it's recovery steps?
> This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
> IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
> Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
> The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
> admin during the failover.
> Regards
> Mike
> Regards
> Mike
> "Thomas" wrote:
|||Hi
Have a look in your event logs and check the time differences between when
Node A shuts down and Node B notices it and starts up. There will be at least
15 event messages during this process. Post the information here so that I
can compare it to our big clusters.
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
> know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
> SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
cluster node at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the
cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked
the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the cluster.
When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
start the cluster service.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
> the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
> The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
> service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
> charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
> Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
> are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
> node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
> just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
> cluster node at a time.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> cluster
> the
>
>
|||Node order is arbitrary in a cluster. We could use Node X and Node Y
instead of Node 1 and Node 2.
Try manually stopping and starting the cluster service on Node 1. If it
restarts quickly, then the problem likely is one of the services that the
cluster service depends on. Time service is a usual suspect for that, but
you will have to check the entire list. Again, the Application and System
event logs are your friends here.
Now is the time to deal with this issue, not after you load SQL and get this
baby into production.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:29B2402A-537B-4DCE-A137-FA200DD28872@.microsoft.com...
> Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
> When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
> start the cluster service.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
grabs[vbcol=seagreen]
yet.[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
second[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
checked[vbcol=seagreen]
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
little[vbcol=seagreen]
after 1[vbcol=seagreen]
troubles.[vbcol=seagreen]
service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
The other node is perfectly fine.
Hi
If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
server depends on) take a long to come online?
I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
high SAN activity.
Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
done it's recovery steps?
This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
admin during the failover.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If you do a fail-over using cluster admin, are there any resources (that SQL
> server depends on) take a long to come online?
> I have seen similar issues when the devices take long to come online due to
> high SAN activity.
> Does the SQL Server resource come online, but take a long time until it has
> done it's recovery steps?
> This can occur when the other node was de-porting it's devices and still had
> IO pending. This results in not all pages being fluished to SAN, so SQL
> Server has to do more recovery on the database start-up.
> The best guage of how quickly a resource comes online is to look at cluster
> admin during the failover.
> Regards
> Mike
> Regards
> Mike
> "Thomas" wrote:
|||Hi
Have a look in your event logs and check the time differences between when
Node A shuts down and Node B notices it and starts up. There will be at least
15 event messages during this process. Post the information here so that I
can compare it to our big clusters.
Regards
Mike
"Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We haven't installed SQL server yet. I should've posted that first. But I
> know from passed installs that SQL does take some time to come online. The
> SAN doesn't have much activity on it right now
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
cluster node at a time.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> I just set up a cluster attached to a SAN. I have had it where the
cluster
> service on one of the nodes doesn't start up right away. I have checked
the
> services to make sure that it is set to automatic which it is. Both nodes
> are current with the latest patches and security updates. I'm a little
> clueless as to why this is happening. Here is the real weird part after 1
> minute the cluster service starts on the node that is giving me troubles.
> The other node is perfectly fine.
|||Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the cluster.
When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
start the cluster service.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> That may be somewhat normal on a simultaneous startup. The first node grabs
> the quorum device and owns the cluster but isn't talking on the network yet.
> The second node tries to get the device but times out. Eventually the
> service comes online and talks to the other node and agrees on who is in
> charge. This is especially prevalent on SCSI-based clusters.
> Check the System and Application event logs on both systems to see if there
> are any unusual startup errors. Also, check what happens when the second
> node is rebooted. If the cluster service does come online quickly, it is
> just a device contention issue. I try and avoid powering up more than one
> cluster node at a time.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF61883D-AE50-4F3F-AD3F-3F07834A2B78@.microsoft.com...
> cluster
> the
>
>
|||Node order is arbitrary in a cluster. We could use Node X and Node Y
instead of Node 1 and Node 2.
Try manually stopping and starting the cluster service on Node 1. If it
restarts quickly, then the problem likely is one of the services that the
cluster service depends on. Time service is a usual suspect for that, but
you will have to check the entire list. Again, the Application and System
event logs are your friends here.
Now is the time to deal with this issue, not after you load SQL and get this
baby into production.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Thomas" <Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:29B2402A-537B-4DCE-A137-FA200DD28872@.microsoft.com...
> Node 2 which I haven't seen the problem with having ownership of the
cluster.[vbcol=seagreen]
> When I reboot node 1 is when I see the problem of it taking 1 mintue to
> start the cluster service.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
grabs[vbcol=seagreen]
yet.[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]
second[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
checked[vbcol=seagreen]
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
little[vbcol=seagreen]
after 1[vbcol=seagreen]
troubles.[vbcol=seagreen]
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Clustering Nodes
Can I create a 2-node cluster using servers with different CPU configs? I have a dual CPU in one node and a quad cpu in another that I want to be able to cluster SQL 2000.
TIA,
Ken
Possible, Yes.
Recommended, No.
FYI, you can't just pick two machines at random and create a cluster.
First, the machines must be on the Cluster HCL (Hardware Compatability
List). Second, they must be installed and configured by a certified cluster
vendor. Otherwise, you may not be able to obtain support for your cluster.
(Or at least the support stops at 'You need to be on a certified cluster'.)
If all you are interested in is a cluster for testing and training, then go
right ahead and grab whatever is lying around. If you want a cluster to be
the centerpiece of a High-Availability database solution, then you need to
go with a certified install.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ken Krause" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0EA9DE7-3445-45A7-8F4A-EB397C94CBFE@.microsoft.com...
> Can I create a 2-node cluster using servers with different CPU configs? I
have a dual CPU in one node and a quad cpu in another that I want to be able
to cluster SQL 2000.
> TIA,
> Ken
|||Thanks for the response. I have a clustered pair of nodes with all hardware on the HCL and have been running without any clustering problems whatsoever. However, the database at the center of this web-based app is running into cpu bettlenecks which causes
extremely poor performance. This has been building for a few months now. I want to go to a quad cpu to eliminate this bottleneck, but can only get the funds for one server at a time. I need the performance right now, but want to keep the clustering for a
vailability.
|||Here's an article which describes the tolerable difference between your
cluster nodes and still maintain support for your cluster:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814607
It'll work and it's supported, though certainly not recommended.
Regards,
John
"kmkrause2" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:055EEAD5-EB16-438B-B9AC-045F2EC9415C@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the response. I have a clustered pair of nodes with all
hardware on the HCL and have been running without any clustering problems
whatsoever. However, the database at the center of this web-based app is
running into cpu bettlenecks which causes extremely poor performance. This
has been building for a few months now. I want to go to a quad cpu to
eliminate this bottleneck, but can only get the funds for one server at a
time. I need the performance right now, but want to keep the clustering for
availability.
|||Thanks for the link, John. Now if only the server would get here. It seems DHL has lost it. It shipped from Vegas and hasn't been documented since it left there 2 days ago. Probably has been stolen, or maybe I've been watching too much Soprano's.
TIA,
Ken
Possible, Yes.
Recommended, No.
FYI, you can't just pick two machines at random and create a cluster.
First, the machines must be on the Cluster HCL (Hardware Compatability
List). Second, they must be installed and configured by a certified cluster
vendor. Otherwise, you may not be able to obtain support for your cluster.
(Or at least the support stops at 'You need to be on a certified cluster'.)
If all you are interested in is a cluster for testing and training, then go
right ahead and grab whatever is lying around. If you want a cluster to be
the centerpiece of a High-Availability database solution, then you need to
go with a certified install.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ken Krause" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0EA9DE7-3445-45A7-8F4A-EB397C94CBFE@.microsoft.com...
> Can I create a 2-node cluster using servers with different CPU configs? I
have a dual CPU in one node and a quad cpu in another that I want to be able
to cluster SQL 2000.
> TIA,
> Ken
|||Thanks for the response. I have a clustered pair of nodes with all hardware on the HCL and have been running without any clustering problems whatsoever. However, the database at the center of this web-based app is running into cpu bettlenecks which causes
extremely poor performance. This has been building for a few months now. I want to go to a quad cpu to eliminate this bottleneck, but can only get the funds for one server at a time. I need the performance right now, but want to keep the clustering for a
vailability.
|||Here's an article which describes the tolerable difference between your
cluster nodes and still maintain support for your cluster:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;814607
It'll work and it's supported, though certainly not recommended.
Regards,
John
"kmkrause2" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:055EEAD5-EB16-438B-B9AC-045F2EC9415C@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the response. I have a clustered pair of nodes with all
hardware on the HCL and have been running without any clustering problems
whatsoever. However, the database at the center of this web-based app is
running into cpu bettlenecks which causes extremely poor performance. This
has been building for a few months now. I want to go to a quad cpu to
eliminate this bottleneck, but can only get the funds for one server at a
time. I need the performance right now, but want to keep the clustering for
availability.
|||Thanks for the link, John. Now if only the server would get here. It seems DHL has lost it. It shipped from Vegas and hasn't been documented since it left there 2 days ago. Probably has been stolen, or maybe I've been watching too much Soprano's.
clustering Exchange and SQL server using one SAN drive
I'm planning to use Exchange Server 2003 and SQL server 2000 in a clustered
solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node should
contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
"Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
group".
Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same time?
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Arnoud Muggen
You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at the
same time.
Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use these
volumes as drives.
Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange bits
on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
especially if you care about performance.
I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster to
learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for help
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
"Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm planning to use Exchange Server 2003 and SQL server 2000 in a
> clustered
> solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
> One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node
> should
> contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
> should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
> I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
> server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
> resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
> I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
> "Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
> D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
> group".
> Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same
> time?
> What am I doing wrong?
> Thanks in advance for your answer.
> Arnoud Muggen
>
|||Everything clear, thanks. I'll start the installation all over again.
Thanks for your help
Arnoud
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:%23as4D8q6FHA.3120@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
> shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at
the
> same time.
> Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use
these
> volumes as drives.
> Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
> on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
> take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange
bits
> on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
> especially if you care about performance.
> I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster
to
> learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
> I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
> classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for
help[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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
>
> "Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
> news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
node[vbcol=seagreen]
disk
>
solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node should
contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
"Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
group".
Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same time?
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Arnoud Muggen
You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at the
same time.
Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use these
volumes as drives.
Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange bits
on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
especially if you care about performance.
I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster to
learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for help
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
"Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm planning to use Exchange Server 2003 and SQL server 2000 in a
> clustered
> solution (windows 2003) with 2 nodes.
> One node should contain the active Exchange resources. The other node
> should
> contain the active SQL server resources. If one node failes the other node
> should run all Exchange AND SQL server resources.
> I am using a SAN (HP MSA500) solution for data storage. In our cluster
> server this is assigned as the physical disk resource "Disk D:". This disk
> resource was added to the default group "Cluster group".
> I need to store my data from both Exchange Server and SQL server on this
> "Disk D:". However, this disk resource is joined to only one node. The
> D-drive is only available on the node which is active for the "Cluster
> group".
> Question: is it possible to use the D-drive for both nodes at the same
> time?
> What am I doing wrong?
> Thanks in advance for your answer.
> Arnoud Muggen
>
|||Everything clear, thanks. I'll start the installation all over again.
Thanks for your help
Arnoud
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:%23as4D8q6FHA.3120@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have a hardware configuration issue. Microsoft clustering uses the
> shared nothing model. You simply can't have the D Drive on both nodes at
the
> same time.
> Start all over. Carve up your MAS500 into volumes. Clustering will use
these
> volumes as drives.
> Next issue, its really not a good idea to run Active(SQL)/Active(Exchange)
> on a two node cluster. During a failure the remaining system is going to
> take a pretty big performance hit. Let alone having the SQL & Exchange
bits
> on the same machine at the same time. Yuck and not a best practice,
> especially if you care about performance.
> I suggest you get Virtual Server 2005 or VMWare and create a test cluster
to
> learn more about configurations. Knowledge is very handy with clusters.
> I also hear that www.clusterhelp.com has several custom detailed training
> classes coming up in NYC & Denver. You may want to looking to them for
help[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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
>
> "Arnoud Muggen" <webmaster_n_o_s_p_a_m_@.act-one.net> wrote in message
> news:eZkgekp6FHA.1724@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
node[vbcol=seagreen]
disk
>
Clustering different versions of SQL Serv 2005
Is it possible to have different versions of SQL Server 2005 clustered as
various nodes. ie:
Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
You have a slight misunderstanding of how clustering works.
In a clustered environment, there are SQL instances and host nodes. The two
entities are entirely independent. An Instance can run on one or more
nodes. A node can host zero or more instances at any given time.
Generally, I set up clusters with each instance on a preferred node, just so
I can find it easily. So, what you are looking for is a cluster with three
nodes and three SQL instances, each instance normally running on a separate
node. In addition, the instances may be different editions of the SQL
Server product.
Since instances are independent of each other as well as the host nodes, you
can mix and match versions and editions on the same cluster, just like on a
stand-alone system.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"divensail" <divensail@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8AB54FC9-696B-43E5-8877-BB30E0B0083A@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have different versions of SQL Server 2005 clustered as
> various nodes. ie:
> Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
> Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
> Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
|||Hi
Just to add to Geoff's comments.
Since you have 3 nodes, Standard Edition will not install on all 3 as it
supports 2 node clusters only.
So you have to pick the possible owner nodes very carefully.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"divensail" <divensail@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8AB54FC9-696B-43E5-8877-BB30E0B0083A@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have different versions of SQL Server 2005 clustered as
> various nodes. ie:
> Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
> Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
> Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
various nodes. ie:
Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
You have a slight misunderstanding of how clustering works.
In a clustered environment, there are SQL instances and host nodes. The two
entities are entirely independent. An Instance can run on one or more
nodes. A node can host zero or more instances at any given time.
Generally, I set up clusters with each instance on a preferred node, just so
I can find it easily. So, what you are looking for is a cluster with three
nodes and three SQL instances, each instance normally running on a separate
node. In addition, the instances may be different editions of the SQL
Server product.
Since instances are independent of each other as well as the host nodes, you
can mix and match versions and editions on the same cluster, just like on a
stand-alone system.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"divensail" <divensail@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8AB54FC9-696B-43E5-8877-BB30E0B0083A@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have different versions of SQL Server 2005 clustered as
> various nodes. ie:
> Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
> Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
> Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
|||Hi
Just to add to Geoff's comments.
Since you have 3 nodes, Standard Edition will not install on all 3 as it
supports 2 node clusters only.
So you have to pick the possible owner nodes very carefully.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"divensail" <divensail@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8AB54FC9-696B-43E5-8877-BB30E0B0083A@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have different versions of SQL Server 2005 clustered as
> various nodes. ie:
> Node 1 - Sql server 2005 Enterprise
> Node 2 - Sql server 2005 Standard
> Node 3 - Sql server 2005 Standard
Clustering , how to start ?
Dear Friends,
i'm using windows 2003 server on both computers
i wanted to practice clustering with sql 200/2005 [two nodes] but it asks for a quorum disk as a shared disk between the two clustered nodes, i didn't know what a quorum disk it, the internet when i searched for says that
a quorum disk should be either a scsi or fiber channel disk, i've never seen a scsi disk, i'll purchase it today, but what i'm confused about is, how will i connect one single scsi disk two two computers/nodes ? i mean does a scsi disk have a long cable to connect to and if yes, then where does the cable fit in on either of the nodes, or is it not physcially shared then if it's logical then how do i configure it.
pls reply soon,
regards, and thanks
Gurjit Singh
Moving this thread to: SQL Server Disaster Recovery and Availability|||
I'd suggest that you start by reading up on the basics of MSCS failover clustering.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms952401.aspx is one place to start, which describes clusters from an application standpoint.
Fundamentally, a cluster consists of 2 or more nodes on a common network, which can all physically access the same storage devices. An application (SQL in this case) is defined to the cluster as a newtork address and name by which that application will be known to the rest of the network, a set of one or more disks which are accessible to all nodes on which the application is allowed to run, and the application itself. When the application starts on a node, that node takes exclusive ownership of the resources defined for it, and starts the application.
This access to the storage is commonly via either SCSI or Fiberchannel. SCSI connections are physically a chain, with one or more "initiators" (the system controller), and one or more devices. There is a terminator on either end of this chain, or "bus".
In a cluster then, a typical layout for a SCSI-based storage system would be to have an extra SCSI adapter on each node, with the chain of disks between the two nodes, and the chain ending at each node. There are other topologies possible, but this is a common one. Note that this bus MUST be separate from the bus on which local system storage (the C: drive, etc.) is located.
Again, this is the 100,000 foot level. There are many many details that need to be gotten right. It's not rocket science, but you do need to pay attention to details. Some reading is definitely in order.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Clustering - Active / Active nodes
I do not have any experience with MS SQL. I'm a hardware engineer. I focus
mainly on the servers hardware and connectivity.
I was wondering, is it possible to cluster 2 (or more) nodes running all
nodes on active / active as a single MS SQL database system? The servers are
connecting to a common shared storage system.
Is this possible? This is more of a scale out strategy.
Thanks
I am sorry to tell you that is not. A database will only run on one machine
at a time. Clustering will not help you with this problem.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Alistair Wong" <Alistair Wong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA956B40-736A-4A10-A11D-BDAAC07FDACF@.microsoft.com...
>I do not have any experience with MS SQL. I'm a hardware engineer. I focus
> mainly on the servers hardware and connectivity.
> I was wondering, is it possible to cluster 2 (or more) nodes running all
> nodes on active / active as a single MS SQL database system? The servers
> are
> connecting to a common shared storage system.
> Is this possible? This is more of a scale out strategy.
> Thanks
mainly on the servers hardware and connectivity.
I was wondering, is it possible to cluster 2 (or more) nodes running all
nodes on active / active as a single MS SQL database system? The servers are
connecting to a common shared storage system.
Is this possible? This is more of a scale out strategy.
Thanks
I am sorry to tell you that is not. A database will only run on one machine
at a time. Clustering will not help you with this problem.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Alistair Wong" <Alistair Wong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA956B40-736A-4A10-A11D-BDAAC07FDACF@.microsoft.com...
>I do not have any experience with MS SQL. I'm a hardware engineer. I focus
> mainly on the servers hardware and connectivity.
> I was wondering, is it possible to cluster 2 (or more) nodes running all
> nodes on active / active as a single MS SQL database system? The servers
> are
> connecting to a common shared storage system.
> Is this possible? This is more of a scale out strategy.
> Thanks
clustering
in clustering groups i got two nodes node 1 is howing
failed and node2 is showing partially online what does it
mean but resources shows online
If one node is showing failed, then something isn't online. The same for
the other node. You can find details for any errors in the event log.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
failed and node2 is showing partially online what does it
mean but resources shows online
If one node is showing failed, then something isn't online. The same for
the other node. You can find details for any errors in the event log.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Clustered SQL 2000
I am currently running a SQL 2000 Ent Server sitting on a MSCS running W2K3 Ent Edition.
One of the nodes is giving me problems, and I suspect that it is due to the build.
I want to evict the offending from the cluster and then rebuild the OS from scratch, and then rejoin the cluster.
My question then is how do I install SQL 2000 Server, up to tha same revision as the existing node, on the newly installed node without overwritting any of the existing data?you should be able to do so just back up your databases system and user
when you reinstall sql server
the advanced options will prompt you for the cluster install.
but as you already know. you will have to update the installation to be as current in version as your existing node.
One of the nodes is giving me problems, and I suspect that it is due to the build.
I want to evict the offending from the cluster and then rebuild the OS from scratch, and then rejoin the cluster.
My question then is how do I install SQL 2000 Server, up to tha same revision as the existing node, on the newly installed node without overwritting any of the existing data?you should be able to do so just back up your databases system and user
when you reinstall sql server
the advanced options will prompt you for the cluster install.
but as you already know. you will have to update the installation to be as current in version as your existing node.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Cluster: Instance naming
Hi all
SQL Server 2005 cluster. Active-Active. We want to create two instances. The two nodes are named:
mike-940-01
mike-940-02
I read somewhere that there can only be ONE default instance in a 2005 cluster. So I interpret that as meaning that I can only have one instance named after a virtual server (example: mike-940-03) and the other instance has to be a slashed instance (example: mike-940-03/instance1). But what if I create another virtual server (example: mike-940-04). Can I install a default instance in that server? Can someone help me clarify this?
Also, if I'm using all slashed instance names, then what does it choose as the base name before the slash? In other words, what decides which virtual server name is used? Is it the management node? Is it one of the nodes?
My objective is to keep consistency in the naming on the cluster. If I have to use slashed instances, then I want all sql server instances to have a slash.
Sorry about the confusing explanation, but that's probably a symptom of MY confusion.
Thanks!Can I install a default instance in that server?
Nope. Think of it this way. If you have a three node cluster, and you shut two of them down, what is left? All of the virtual servers will be running on a single node. Since that is a possibility (however rare), you can not have two default instances running on the same cluster.
"Base name" or hostname is determined by the name of the virtual server. This is determined by the creation of the Virtual server at the OS level. We have overridden this name with a DNS alias, but that will only get you as far as the hostname, and can not replace the \instancename.
Does this help at all?|||Yeah, what MCrowley said.
When you create a cluster using Windows, what you really do is create a single virtual server that is actually based on one or (nearly always) more than one physical servers. So for ease of discussion, let's assume you create a cluster (virtual server) named STOOGE using three physical servers, CURLY, MOE, and LARRY. You can still connect to CURLY, MOE, or LARRY if you really want to, but there are consequences to doing that so you really only want administrators to do such a thing, and then only if they understand the consequences of dealing directly with cluster resources. The rest of the world (your user base, applications, etc) will only see STOOGE and will neither know nor care whether a given snippet of code is physically running on CURLY, MOE, or LARRY at any given moment in time.
Since the STOOGE server is one Windows server, it can only support at most one un-named instance of SQL Server. Even though STOOGE could support an unnamed instance, it is a bad idea and I'll explain that a bit later.
Applications and services on a Windows cluster have a "preferred node" and a "failover path" through the cluster. The "preferred node" is the machine that you'd like to have the service or application run upon if it can. The "failover path" describes the order of the machines that you'd like the cluster to use for the service or application (so that the cluster can try to use the nodes in the order that you'd prefer). Applying this bit of info to your example, you could create nodes A, B, and C so that A preferred CURLY, B preferred MOE, and C preferred LARRY... Later on, when the budget allowed for more hardware you could add a new server SHIMP and make it the first server in the failover path for A, B, and C.
The possibilities are almost endless, and they depend almost 100% on your specific circumstances. The scenario that I've sketched out just gives you some ideas, but hopefully it helps you to understand the "moving pieces" well enough to sketch out a design that suits your needs.
One final observation that I'll throw out that might be the best single piece of advice I can give someone new to Windows Clustering... If you have an MS-PSS (Microsoft Premier Support Services) agreement in place, this is the time to use it! Your TAM or ADC will bend over backwards to get you off on the right foot with clustering, and whatever you do spend on consulting will usually come back to you at least a hundred fold! If you do not have an agreement, now would be a good time to investigate one, and even if you have to pay for consulting services it will almost certainly be worth your while! Ths really is a great time to "call in the big dogs" because you can learn so much, so fast that will make your life so much easier (and probably cheaper too) that you almost can't go wrong asking for expertise at this point!
-PatP|||Wait. you can create a one node cluster? That may simplify one of my requirements incredibly. To the Google cave!|||Hey MCrowley, Pat...thanks for the help. You guys have cleared up a lot of confusion. We built our test environment this week and it went well.
Sorry I didn't post anything, but this site is blocked at work. :eek: It's like I work for the FBI, but NOT.
SQL Server 2005 cluster. Active-Active. We want to create two instances. The two nodes are named:
mike-940-01
mike-940-02
I read somewhere that there can only be ONE default instance in a 2005 cluster. So I interpret that as meaning that I can only have one instance named after a virtual server (example: mike-940-03) and the other instance has to be a slashed instance (example: mike-940-03/instance1). But what if I create another virtual server (example: mike-940-04). Can I install a default instance in that server? Can someone help me clarify this?
Also, if I'm using all slashed instance names, then what does it choose as the base name before the slash? In other words, what decides which virtual server name is used? Is it the management node? Is it one of the nodes?
My objective is to keep consistency in the naming on the cluster. If I have to use slashed instances, then I want all sql server instances to have a slash.
Sorry about the confusing explanation, but that's probably a symptom of MY confusion.
Thanks!Can I install a default instance in that server?
Nope. Think of it this way. If you have a three node cluster, and you shut two of them down, what is left? All of the virtual servers will be running on a single node. Since that is a possibility (however rare), you can not have two default instances running on the same cluster.
"Base name" or hostname is determined by the name of the virtual server. This is determined by the creation of the Virtual server at the OS level. We have overridden this name with a DNS alias, but that will only get you as far as the hostname, and can not replace the \instancename.
Does this help at all?|||Yeah, what MCrowley said.
When you create a cluster using Windows, what you really do is create a single virtual server that is actually based on one or (nearly always) more than one physical servers. So for ease of discussion, let's assume you create a cluster (virtual server) named STOOGE using three physical servers, CURLY, MOE, and LARRY. You can still connect to CURLY, MOE, or LARRY if you really want to, but there are consequences to doing that so you really only want administrators to do such a thing, and then only if they understand the consequences of dealing directly with cluster resources. The rest of the world (your user base, applications, etc) will only see STOOGE and will neither know nor care whether a given snippet of code is physically running on CURLY, MOE, or LARRY at any given moment in time.
Since the STOOGE server is one Windows server, it can only support at most one un-named instance of SQL Server. Even though STOOGE could support an unnamed instance, it is a bad idea and I'll explain that a bit later.
Applications and services on a Windows cluster have a "preferred node" and a "failover path" through the cluster. The "preferred node" is the machine that you'd like to have the service or application run upon if it can. The "failover path" describes the order of the machines that you'd like the cluster to use for the service or application (so that the cluster can try to use the nodes in the order that you'd prefer). Applying this bit of info to your example, you could create nodes A, B, and C so that A preferred CURLY, B preferred MOE, and C preferred LARRY... Later on, when the budget allowed for more hardware you could add a new server SHIMP and make it the first server in the failover path for A, B, and C.
The possibilities are almost endless, and they depend almost 100% on your specific circumstances. The scenario that I've sketched out just gives you some ideas, but hopefully it helps you to understand the "moving pieces" well enough to sketch out a design that suits your needs.
One final observation that I'll throw out that might be the best single piece of advice I can give someone new to Windows Clustering... If you have an MS-PSS (Microsoft Premier Support Services) agreement in place, this is the time to use it! Your TAM or ADC will bend over backwards to get you off on the right foot with clustering, and whatever you do spend on consulting will usually come back to you at least a hundred fold! If you do not have an agreement, now would be a good time to investigate one, and even if you have to pay for consulting services it will almost certainly be worth your while! Ths really is a great time to "call in the big dogs" because you can learn so much, so fast that will make your life so much easier (and probably cheaper too) that you almost can't go wrong asking for expertise at this point!
-PatP|||Wait. you can create a one node cluster? That may simplify one of my requirements incredibly. To the Google cave!|||Hey MCrowley, Pat...thanks for the help. You guys have cleared up a lot of confusion. We built our test environment this week and it went well.
Sorry I didn't post anything, but this site is blocked at work. :eek: It's like I work for the FBI, but NOT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)