Service Packs with Clustering

I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
interesting that they have very limited "apologetics" to explain why...

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
> down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
> requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.
>
> And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
> been since SQL 7.0.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
> "CLM" wrote in message
>
> >I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
> >out
> > that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
> > outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
> > Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
> > once
> > that is done put the original configuration back.
> >
> > With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
> > similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
> > seconds for service pack applications??
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

> And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
> been since SQL 7.0.

Give up, Geoff! That nomenclature will persist!

Linchi

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
> down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
> requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.
>
> And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
> been since SQL 7.0.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
> "CLM" wrote in message
>
> >I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
> >out
> > that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
> > outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
> > Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
> > once
> > that is done put the original configuration back.
> >
> > With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
> > similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
> > seconds for service pack applications??
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

> I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
Chase Oracle for what???

Linchi

"CLM" wrote:

> I was really surprised to see them not chase after Oracle on this. And it's
> interesting that they have very limited "apologetics" to explain why...
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
> > Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire instance
> > down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service pack/hotfix time
> > requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror switchover.
> >
> > And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> > nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and haven't
> > been since SQL 7.0.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> > Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "CLM" wrote in message
> >
> > >I got an interesting post yesterday on this site where the person pointed
> > >out
> > > that with Mirroring you could apply a service pack on the Mirror, take an
> > > outage of a few seconds on the principal and then make the Mirror the
> > > Principal and then apply the service pack to the original Principal and
> > > once
> > > that is done put the original configuration back.
> > >
> > > With clustering active/active or active/passive, can you do something
> > > similar? In other words, is there any way to only take an outage of a few
> > > seconds for service pack applications??
> >
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote in message

> Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire
> instance down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service
> pack/hotfix time requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror
> switchover.
>
> And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and
> haven't been since SQL 7.0.

I love that this is such a pet peeve for you. <G>

Personally, I don't think saying you have a multi instance cluster is very
descriptive either.

If you say that you have a three node, two instance, Active/Active/Passive
cluster, that really makes it clear what it is.


--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau


"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote in message

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote in message

> Nope. A service pack applies instance-wide, so it takes the entire
> instance down during the install. SQL 2005 has reduced the service
> pack/hotfix time requirement, but is is still more than for a mirror
> switchover.
>
> And don't get me started on the whole "active/passive/active/whatever"
> nomenclature. They are not descriptive of how clustering works and
> haven't been since SQL 7.0.

I love that this is such a pet peeve for you. <G>

Personally, I don't think saying you have a multi instance cluster is very
descriptive either.

If you say that you have a three node, two instance, Active/Active/Passive
cluster, that really makes it clear what it is.


--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

"Tom Moreau" wrote in message

> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?

Is it Active/Passive? <G>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

<Thwack>

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP


"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote in message

> "Tom Moreau" wrote in message
>
>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>
> Is it Active/Passive? <G>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?

If the instances are all configured to run on one node in their 'steady
state' and the other node is left for standby, it's active/passive. If some
instances are configured to run on one node and the other instance(s) is
configured to run on the other node, I'd just spell it out, for instance:

Active/Passive, Active/Passive, and Passive/Active corresponding to the
following:

Instance Node1 Node2
---------- --------- ---------
Instance1 active passive
Instance2 active passive
Instance3 passive active

Personally, I think this is intuitive and complete.

Linchi

"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:

> "Tom Moreau" wrote in message
>
> > What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>
> Is it Active/Passive? <G>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

Just curious, but what would you call it if you had the following:

Instance Month Node1 Node2 Node3
A Jan active passive passive
A Feb passive active passive
A Mar passive passive active
....
B Jan passive active passive
B Feb passive passive active
B Mar active passive passive
....

So, in January the 'passive' node is Node3, February the passive node is
Node1 and Mar the passive node is Node2.

Jeff

Linchi Shea wrote:
>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>>
>
> If the instances are all configured to run on one node in their 'steady
> state' and the other node is left for standby, it's active/passive. If some
> instances are configured to run on one node and the other instance(s) is
> configured to run on the other node, I'd just spell it out, for instance:
>
> Active/Passive, Active/Passive, and Passive/Active corresponding to the
> following:
>
> Instance Node1 Node2
> ---------- --------- ---------
> Instance1 active passive
> Instance2 active passive
> Instance3 passive active
>
> Personally, I think this is intuitive and complete.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:
>
>
>> "Tom Moreau" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>>>
>> Is it Active/Passive? <G>
>>
>>
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

Exactly the way you have outlined already:

Jan: Active\Passive\Passive, Passive\Active\Passive
Feb: Passive\Active\Passive, Passive\Passive\Active
....

and so on. This tells you exactly that (1) you have multiple instances, and
(2) where each instance should be running in its normal steady state
configuration. Just telling somebody, you have multiple instances doesn't
convey sufficient information.

You may say that's crazy, and you would be exactly right on that. Well, if
you are willing to go through the trouble to change the normal state of
configuration of a cluster on monthly basis, you deserve the naming trouble.

Linchi

"Jeffrey Williams" wrote:

> Just curious, but what would you call it if you had the following:
>
> Instance Month Node1 Node2 Node3
> A Jan active passive passive
> A Feb passive active passive
> A Mar passive passive active
> ....
> B Jan passive active passive
> B Feb passive passive active
> B Mar active passive passive
> ....
>
> So, in January the 'passive' node is Node3, February the passive node is
> Node1 and Mar the passive node is Node2.
>
> Jeff
>
> Linchi Shea wrote:
> >> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
> >>
> >
> > If the instances are all configured to run on one node in their 'steady
> > state' and the other node is left for standby, it's active/passive. If some
> > instances are configured to run on one node and the other instance(s) is
> > configured to run on the other node, I'd just spell it out, for instance:
> >
> > Active/Passive, Active/Passive, and Passive/Active corresponding to the
> > following:
> >
> > Instance Node1 Node2
> > ---------- --------- ---------
> > Instance1 active passive
> > Instance2 active passive
> > Instance3 passive active
> >
> > Personally, I think this is intuitive and complete.
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "Tom Moreau" wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
> >>>
> >> Is it Active/Passive? <G>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

Yes, that is exactly why just saying you have an active/active or
active/passive cluster is not sufficient. All depends on how many
instances are being hosted on the cluster and what nodes they are hosted
on at any given time.

FWIW - we have a two node single instance cluster where we will be
'active' on either host depending upon the last time we moved the
group. Generally, we only move the group when we apply server patches
and the process is:

Identify the current non-active node, apply patches and reboot.
Move the group to the newly patched server
Apply patches and reboot

Personally, I do not like moving the cluster group more than once if
possible. No reason to move the group back to the original host unless
there are issues with that node.

Jeff

Linchi Shea wrote:
> Exactly the way you have outlined already:
>
> Jan: Active\Passive\Passive, Passive\Active\Passive
> Feb: Passive\Active\Passive, Passive\Passive\Active
> ...
>
> and so on. This tells you exactly that (1) you have multiple instances, and
> (2) where each instance should be running in its normal steady state
> configuration. Just telling somebody, you have multiple instances doesn't
> convey sufficient information.
>
> You may say that's crazy, and you would be exactly right on that. Well, if
> you are willing to go through the trouble to change the normal state of
> configuration of a cluster on monthly basis, you deserve the naming trouble.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Jeffrey Williams" wrote:
>
>
>> Just curious, but what would you call it if you had the following:
>>
>> Instance Month Node1 Node2 Node3
>> A Jan active passive passive
>> A Feb passive active passive
>> A Mar passive passive active
>> ....
>> B Jan passive active passive
>> B Feb passive passive active
>> B Mar active passive passive
>> ....
>>
>> So, in January the 'passive' node is Node3, February the passive node is
>> Node1 and Mar the passive node is Node2.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Linchi Shea wrote:
>>
>>>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If the instances are all configured to run on one node in their 'steady
>>> state' and the other node is left for standby, it's active/passive. If some
>>> instances are configured to run on one node and the other instance(s) is
>>> configured to run on the other node, I'd just spell it out, for instance:
>>>
>>> Active/Passive, Active/Passive, and Passive/Active corresponding to the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> Instance Node1 Node2
>>> ---------- --------- ---------
>>> Instance1 active passive
>>> Instance2 active passive
>>> Instance3 passive active
>>>
>>> Personally, I think this is intuitive and complete.
>>>
>>> Linchi
>>>
>>> "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Tom Moreau" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What if you have a 2-node, 3-instance cluster?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is it Active/Passive? <G>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering 

"Jeffrey Williams" wrote in message

> Yes, that is exactly why just saying you have an active/active or
> active/passive cluster is not sufficient. All depends on how many
> instances are being hosted on the cluster and what nodes they are hosted
> on at any given time.

Right. But at the same time, you can't properly describe the cluster without
the terms active and passive.

--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
 >> Stay informed about: Service Packs with Clustering