Yeah, there is a lot to consider, especially since there isn't much knowledge about Clustering or Alwayson in my company.
I probably would need to look into it. I guess it's obvious I don't know enough about it yet :) Putting SSRS separate and not have HA for it should be ok I think. But with 4 servers I would get HA for OpsMgr. Just storage replication wouldn't help with OS issues. Thanks! From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Holman Sent: Dienstag, 19. August 2014 17:06 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? When using a Windows Failover Cluster for SQL, you should install SSRS on a dedicated server or VM that is NOT part of the cluster. Most customers will deploy a dedicated VM for SSRS. SSRS is not cluster aware and it is not supported to have different nodes running different software. The whole discussion around SQL Always On or Windows Failover Cluster with shared storage is a complicated, lengthy discussion. Anytime you are discussing DR, HA, and Business Continuity, much needs to be considered. What is the customer capable of supporting? Does the SQL team support clusters today? Does the SQL team have familiarity and training on supporting SQL Always On yet? Does the customer need higher availability, and is shared storage as a single point of failure a concern? Does the customer need multiple-site failover design for business continuity? What storage replication capabilities does the customer already utilize? What do the network links look like? What other technologies are present that might meet our needs, such as VM replication, or storage replication of the VM's? From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:14 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? Well, is SSRS for OpsMgr not in scope? :) Just asking because I think SSRS is not working clustered or with AlwaysOn. I just put it on one node? New instance? -R From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Page, Stuart F. Sent: Dienstag, 19. August 2014 15:02 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? There are lots of SQL resources you can check out online for the how to, including SSRS. Kinda out of scope for this listserv, but I'm sure you'll find the information you need. Good luck setting up your cluster! From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:53 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? Thanks Stuart, I look into that. Never done one :) A cluster doesn't mean it has to host more instances, although it is tempting. This is about reducing servers and having HA. Hm, would SSRS fit into that picture? From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Page, Stuart F. Sent: Dienstag, 19. August 2014 14:27 To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? Yes, I think that would probably be the simplest configuration to satisfy your HA need. That alone would improve SCOM availability considerably. Be advised though. A SQL Cluster is an attractive resource. Once you have one in place, you'll find lots of other uses for it. You may wish to size resources with that in mind. From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:54 AM To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? So basically a two node cluster hosting both databases? From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Kunz Sent: Dienstag, 19. August 2014 02:54 To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? I concur We have clusters at main site with truecopy san replication to a DR site and several redundant MS's _____ From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: RE: [msmom] SQL Always on? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:51:02 +0000 Roland, I would suggest a SQL cluster to provide high availability for your SQL DB's. Also, make sure you have a decent SQL backup strategy. We use SQL clustering heavily in our organization for lots of applications. We are currently in the same boat with our SCOM DB's, but we have plans to migrate them to our SQL cluster before too long. From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 7:32 AM To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: [msmom] SQL Always on? My current design is two Mgt servers for some HA (no network yet) and the Ops and DW DB's on separate servers. But that makes SQL still single point of failure. So should I do Always on for both doubling SQL? Or can I do Always on with just those two, putting a copy of each to the other? OpsDB and DW DB on both? Should one fail, I still have both DB's but the same number of servers? Does that make even sense? :) Is there a point of doing two MgtServers for HA with just one SQL for each DB? -roland
