Should The Quorum Disk Be A Physical Disk Or Majority Node Set?
Nov 15, 2006
Hello,
I am trying to setup a test cluster and am having an issue. When I try to create the resource of a physical disk it takes both the drive e: and drive q: and doesn't seperate them into two physical disks as resources. This means when I try to associate the quorum disk it links the to physcial disk resource of drive e and q. Then when I try to install SQL2k5 I get the warning about installing SQL on the quorum disk. Am I missing something? Is there a way to seperate e and q onto two physical disk resources so I can specifically associate the quorum to q and the sql to e or should I be setting the quorum disk to a majority node set? Thanks in advance.
If I return the Average, Minimum, and Maximum values for the counter Physical Disk: Avg. Disk Queue Length, and those values are 10, 0, 87 respectively, which value do I use to compute the Avg. Disk Queue Length for a 4 disk array(RAID 10): Average, Minimum, or Maximum? The disk(lun) is on a SAN.
I'm trying to install a server cluster to implement an SQL Server 2005 cluster. No other services (I think this is important).
I've a dual SCSI channel Smart Array with 4 disks configured in a 400Gb RAID 5.
I do not need to move different resource groups from one node to the other, I need only one group with all the resources IP, Network name, MSDTC, and SQL Server..., when a node fails, all services should failover to the other node.
Is it possible to have only one physical disk (RAID 5) for Quorum disk and shared disk?
It would be the following configuration:
[Groups] Cluster Group IP Address Network Name Physical disk (used for quorum and shared storage) Distributed Transaction Coordinator SQL Server SQL Server Agent Generic Service (SQL Server Fulltext)
The other option would be having a 1 physical disk Raid 0 for Quorum (146Gb wasted) and another physical disk Raid 5 (3 disk) for Shared Storage, but this schema will have a a flaw point that if Quorum disk fails, the cluster fails....
I've the quorum disk of my cluster on win2003 full and I cannot use The cluster administrator because the Service Cluster cannot going up.
Obviously the shared disk (included Quorum) and MSDTC are not visible and I'm wondering if is possible to solve the problem without rebuild the cluster.
I am trying to setup clustering for SQL 2005. I initially want to setup a 2 node cluster in Active/Active Configuration.
I am trying to understand the Quorum disk in SQL 2005. As I understand the quorum disk is a shared resource. How is this resource configured? Would I need to have an iSCSI or fibrechannel connection from each of the nodes to the shared disk?
As well, does each node have a separate data drive? Or do all the nodes use only the shared storage?
I have a windows 2012 cluster environment that consists of two SQL servers nodes with Quorum disk configured as witness.
Manual failover between nodes is working fine, however the sql instance virtual is not seeing the Quorum disk.
Moreover the Quorum disk has the same number as another cluster storage disk, is that considered a problem?
When I move the SQL instance from a node to anohter, should the Quorum Disk change ownership as well to that destination node ? if it is not changing ownership what would be the problem??
hello,all I am new to Sql 2000,I installed sql 2000 database in C disk,but Now I found my C disk space is smaller than before,So I want to move my databse(include data and structure) from C Disk to D Disk(its space is very large) . is it possible to do it ? if its can be done ,do I need to change my asp.net program source code (exp: chaneg my crystal report connectstring ) ? thanks in advanced!
I just inherited a dev box, and need to do some performance analyzing on a 40 gig db for a client. Time is of the essence!
My question is that this dev box only has one disk partition (c: drive). Is it a huge deal that I don't have the db system files on one drive, with the data files on another, and tempdb on another,etc.....
I want to move 2 databases to another physical disk. They are both single file databases. It looks like a fairly straigtforward attach and detach procedure, but I have a couple of questions:
The log files (.ldf) currently reside on a separate physical disk from the data files, if I attach and reattach the data files will the logs remain where they are by default or do I have to re specify there location?
Is there any advantage to running the update statistics portion of the sp_detach_db?
I have an MS SQL 2000 server running on a Proliat with two CPUs and 2GB RAM (the process actually uses 1.6GB).
For some reason, the same queries (which return the same data) run sometimes very fast and sometimes very slow.
I used the performance counter to find out that when the queries run fast there is little disk i/o and when they run slowly there is a lot of i/o.
I thought it happens because the DB keeps swapping tables in and out of RAM. The problem is that these things happen in periods. I can have a few hours of slow access and then a few hours of fast access. This makes me believe that it doesn't actually put the table in the cache untill it is requested enough times. Very weird.
Due to running out of disk space and reducing I/O contention, I plan to seperate data files and log files to different disk arrays.
My plan is to - detach all databases - copy log files to another disk - attach all databases
The total size of log files is about 60GB. It becomes a problem becasue it spend too much time passing files. To reduce down time, is there any way I can do?
Can I just create new log files and remove the current files by using sql management studio?
Does anyone have any recommendation on whether it's better to monitor the average queue lenght for physical or logical drives? What about for a RAID set?
I'm just starting to work with AlwaysOn Availability and WSFC.
I have in my environment (in Azure) a DC, WSFC and to SQL instances, so I have 3 nodes in my Failover Cluster:
WSFC SQL1 SQL2
If I simulate failure by shutting down one of the SQL boxes my Availability group seamlessly fails over to the other SQL instance - which is great.
However, I'm starting to look into the workings of the Quorum, my envt has the default settings and when I shutdown both of my SQL servers I expected the Cluster itself to go offline as 2 out of the 3 votes will be negative, but the Cluster is still up - Screenshot below when SQL1 and SQL2 are shutdown:
Going through the Wizard (but not changing anything) it shows following config:
-- Initialize Control Mechanism DECLARE@Drive TINYINT, @SQL VARCHAR(100)
SET@Drive = 97
-- Setup Staging Area DECLARE@Drives TABLE ( Drive CHAR(1), Info VARCHAR(80) )
WHILE @Drive <= 122 BEGIN SET@SQL = 'EXEC XP_CMDSHELL ''fsutil volume diskfree ' + CHAR(@Drive) + ':'''
INSERT@Drives ( Info ) EXEC(@SQL)
UPDATE@Drives SETDrive = CHAR(@Drive) WHEREDrive IS NULL
SET@Drive = @Drive + 1 END
-- Show the expected output SELECTDrive, SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS TotalBytes, SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS FreeBytes, SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of avail free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS AvailFreeBytes FROM( SELECTDrive, Info FROM@Drives WHEREInfo LIKE 'Total # of %' ) AS d GROUP BYDrive ORDER BYDrive
I have a three tier system using SQL server 2000, we are currently experiencing IO bottle necks on our SCSI Raid 10 array, which holds the Data and the logs in separate partitions.
So my options as I understand it are:
Get Enterprise edition
or
Get another physical raid 10 array and separate the logs and data i.e. data on one array and logs on the other array.
I would like to try the latter but I am totally unsure how much difference this will make or whether it will make any difference at all.
Does anyone know how much performance increase I will get from using two arrays as opposed to one?
Any other advice on this scenario would be greatly appreciated.
I am trying to set up a SQL 2005 analysis server cluster in our two servers, AS02 and AS04. The server cluster is built up on Majority Node Set (MNS). During the installation of the analysis service, I don't see the available cluster groups. In the cluster admin, the cluster is up and running fine. The MNS cluster has no shared disk, and it has two nodes.
Any thoughts or suggestions? or is it possible to built the SQL 2005 analysis service cluster with MNS?
Hello I need to setup a compaq sever with 300 MB database, and will be adding around 600 records on a daily basis. Can someone help with how much disk space i should have on sqlserver, providing i have c: and d: setup.
I have a server and it has C: D: F: I: Drives and all the system files are on C:Drive and and all the .MDF's and .LDF's(model,temp,master) are on the F: Drive and now I am running out of space on both(C: and F: Drives)
1. Can we add space to the C: and F: drives on the fly?. 2. Can I move the System databases ( MDF's and LDF's to some other drive)and if so, how do I do it?( Moving the databases ) and this is on the production database so when I have to do this.Will there be any impact.
We need a drive cloning app, like Ghost, that will allow us to transfer a production image off of a HDD to other PCs. The problem with this is that our production needs SQL in order to run and transferring the initial image to uniquely named workstations causes DB registration problems. Is there an app that will allow us to configure this transferred image so that SQL will refer to the "new" drive instead in of the "old"?
We are experiencing high disk i/o on one of our RAID disk systems. Can someone tell me how I can identify the query or user or process which is causing this high disk i/o?
I noticed something strange today. I was running a query using query analyzer on a large database (8.8 million records) and the disk space on the c: drive was dropping and eventually went to 0. Availalbe space on the c: drive is 10GB. The query did complete. SQL server and all the databases are on the d: drive. After closing the query results in query analyzer the disk space returned. Is this a concern and is there a way to change it to use the d: for whatever it is doing?
What's the best way to find out if disk fragmentation on Windows 2000 Server is affecting SQL Server performance?
If disk fragmentation is shown to be a cause of performance problems, what are the recommendations for a disk fragmentation strategy? eg. use the win 2000 built in disk defrag utility or buy a 3rd party product like DiskKeeper? How much of an overhead is a product like DiskKeeper that defrags in the background?
Hi all, I have a problem... I use SQL server 2000,all the disk on computer is used to store data file and transaction log file, and now they are full so data can be insert or update because the data file and transaction log file can be add more or increase, please show me. Best regard,
This is my first attempt using SQL 2000 and DTS. I am importing an Access database using the DTS wizard. The process fails with a "Not enough space on temporary disk" error. There is definitely enough space on the physical disk. I don't have any limits on any folder sizes either. What "disk" is the error talking about, and how do I give it enough space. The database is relatively small, about 10MB. I believe the database was created using Access 97. Please help.
I understand the log files (LDF ) and data files (mdf ) should be on a different drives . I believe it leads to greater availabilty and speed . Are there any other reasons for to keep this on a separate drive.
Also what considerations I should take care while creating a database of around 100 GB . (use of filegroups , growth % etc ). Is there any connection of number of users to number of disks SQL data file to be spread to . Also do I need to take care (through hardware / software for a Quad core CPU ) to take full advanage of Quad core CPU.
I am wondering what normal disk I/O should be. i know it verys depending on use but im looking for an average.
here is an idea of what we have
there is about 10 centers doing replication to our primary server. we have about 80 users connecting directoy to our primary server using MS Dynamics through CITRIX. we have a few other apps use the database as well however i am fairly certin its Dynamics generating our disk IO Hardware wise we have a powerful blade connected to a raid 5 SAN with 15000 rpm disks. normaly the disk IO stays fairly low but every so often it goes crazy and im thinking it shouldn't
Below is a sample of our disk IO from perfmon over 2 minutes or so. as you can see everything looks ok untill 04/15/2008 10:12:49.470 when the Disk I/O % goes above 100%
