Change from Active\Active to Active\Passive Cluster

I have a SQL Server 2000 Cluster with Windows 2000 Server.
The Cluster was set up as a Active\Active and I would like to change it to
Active\Passive.
What do I need to change go from Active\Active to Active\Passive?
Thanks,
Hi
Active/Active vs Active/Passive in SQL server tems is not correct.
Active/Active = 2 SQL Server instances, one running on each node.
Active/Passive = 1 SQL Server instance, running on a Node, with the other
node doing nothing but waiting for a failover.
Uninstall one SQL server instance and you have what you want. Any reason you
want to do this?
Regards
Mike
"Joe K." wrote:

> I have a SQL Server 2000 Cluster with Windows 2000 Server.
> The Cluster was set up as a Active\Active and I would like to change it to
> Active\Passive.
> What do I need to change go from Active\Active to Active\Passive?
> Thanks,
|||Mike - Are you recommending not to run an active/passive cluster config?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Active/Active vs Active/Passive in SQL server tems is not correct.
> Active/Active = 2 SQL Server instances, one running on each node.
> Active/Passive = 1 SQL Server instance, running on a Node, with the other
> node doing nothing but waiting for a failover.
> Uninstall one SQL server instance and you have what you want. Any reason you
> want to do this?
> Regards
> Mike
> "Joe K." wrote:
|||Hi
No, but the decision must be based on business requirements.
If you need 2 instances of SQL Server, run them.
At work, we use put 4-6 instances per node on a SQL Cluster (= 8-12 per 2
node cluster). Our perspective is that having one machine do nothing is a
waste of space and energy.
Single Instance (Active/Passive), from a licensing perspective is cheaper,
you only need to license the single node as the other node is DR and is not
active.
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/
"Todd" <Todd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90355A4B-87CE-4B14-8C2C-AC0D909D1981@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mike - Are you recommending not to run an active/passive cluster config?
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
other[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
it to[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I agree Mike. At work we use all active/passive clusters (4 total clusters
with 2 nodes in each) and run only a single instance on each active node. We
are doing a mass db consolidation project now and will likely go the path of
a multinode cluster as that will best suit our business needs.
Do you run different coalition settings on your 4-6 instances per node?
Thanks,
Todd
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> No, but the decision must be based on business requirements.
> If you need 2 instances of SQL Server, run them.
> At work, we use put 4-6 instances per node on a SQL Cluster (= 8-12 per 2
> node cluster). Our perspective is that having one machine do nothing is a
> waste of space and energy.
> Single Instance (Active/Passive), from a licensing perspective is cheaper,
> you only need to license the single node as the other node is DR and is not
> active.
> 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/
> "Todd" <Todd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:90355A4B-87CE-4B14-8C2C-AC0D909D1981@.microsoft.com...
> other
> you
> it to
>
>
|||Hi
No, Same collation. For us, multi-instances are there for security (bank),
to keep everyone away from each other.
It also makes it easier to add more nodes if we need to, so we then move the
instances around.
Once you start to have more than 2 busy instances, you better have a decent
SAN (EMC, biiiig EMC's) that can sustain the throughput. Multi fiber cards,
multi paths etc.
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/
"Todd" <Todd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23520408-C115-496C-9D33-A5313C3424C2@.microsoft.com...
> I agree Mike. At work we use all active/passive clusters (4 total
clusters
> with 2 nodes in each) and run only a single instance on each active node.
We
> are doing a mass db consolidation project now and will likely go the path
of[vbcol=seagreen]
> a multinode cluster as that will best suit our business needs.
> Do you run different coalition settings on your 4-6 instances per node?
> Thanks,
> Todd
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
2[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
cheaper,[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
config?[vbcol=seagreen]
reason[vbcol=seagreen]
change[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I agree 100% with Mike. I run a large N-1 cluster (N Nodes, N-1 Instances)
so I have one stand-by node for three active instances. I have scripts to
change the cluster failover order depending on what maintenance is
happening. I also can change memory settings and collapse the cluster on a
single node during low activity times for host node maintenance. It takes a
few extra steps to manage a large, multi-instance cluster, but the same
principles apply.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:Ok8qLjeGFHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> No, Same collation. For us, multi-instances are there for security (bank),
> to keep everyone away from each other.
> It also makes it easier to add more nodes if we need to, so we then move
the
> instances around.
> Once you start to have more than 2 busy instances, you better have a
decent
> SAN (EMC, biiiig EMC's) that can sustain the throughput. Multi fiber
cards,[vbcol=seagreen]
> multi paths etc.
> 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/
> "Todd" <Todd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23520408-C115-496C-9D33-A5313C3424C2@.microsoft.com...
> clusters
node.[vbcol=seagreen]
> We
path[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
per[vbcol=seagreen]
> 2
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> a
> cheaper,
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> not
> config?
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> reason
> change
Active\Passive?
>
sql