Choosing the correct clustering method


hi, have small 3 server environment (win 2012), 1 pdc, , 2 servers running hyper-v. have 8 or hyper v machines on 1 of servers , using hyper-v replica replicate of them other server. woud upgrade provide hot migration/failover vm's. considering having storage cluster 2 machines storage , vm cluster 2 machines migration. confusion cluster? cluster physical machines, vm's or both? note sql server running on 1 of vm's.

lee

with 3 physical servers, require third party software in order able build highly available cluster vms.  if want high availability vms, need cluster physical hyper-v hosts.  if want high availability application, can cluster vms running application.

a cluster requires domain environment.  have that.  (btw, idea have @ least 2 dcs, too.) hyper-v failover clustering requires shared storage on store vms.  microsoft cluster requires external shared storage - iscsi, sas, pcie raid controllers, fc, smb 3.0, fcoe - comes in lot of forms.  third party software can use local storage, mirror between 2 physical hosts, , present host iscsi storage, 'fooling' windows believing has external shared storage.  totally valid solution.

so, first things need define recovery time objective - how need systems should sometime go awry on host running vms.  need determine best way, within budget, deliver rto.  sql has built-in capabilities whereby can create highly available sql environment without building form of cluster.  clustering can provide automatic restart of vms in case of loss of host, simple scripting, possible automatically restart vms in replica.

there lot of options.  bit more information requirements suggest solution.


.:|:.:|:. tim



Windows Server  >  High Availability (Clustering)



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

some help on Event 540

WMI Repository 4GB limit - Win 2003 Ent Question

Event ID 1302 (error 1307) DFS replication service encountered an error while writing to the debug log file