| Author |
Message
|
| bobbee |
 Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:19 am Post subject: Veritas Hardware requirement |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 545
Location: Tampa
|
I have a two server node that I want to set up in an HA environment. I want to use Veritas or MSCS. IS two servers the min. I can move forward with this setup. Do I need a third to monitor. I don't need best practice in this. I need cost reduction. If two ar sufficient, then I am Ok with that.
Plus, I I know there may be latency issues,do these servers need to be physical nextto each other. Is there a null-modem cable that needs to run between themfor heart-beat. I believe theclients alternat site is in another part of the city.Sort of sounds like DR instead of HA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Please speak with your platform Sys Admins, as they will be able to best advise you.
It'll be a fibre link between the servers by the way, provided they are not to geographically separated.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
It's possible to run both with 2 servers. But your admins will probably be the best people to discuss the hardware with (as my associate points out).
If the servers are geographically separated it does sound more DR than HA.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bobbee |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 545
Location: Tampa
|
| I agree on the DR vs HA. I see from a VISIO they presented they are doing log shipping for another application. That is what 'woke' me up to the indication of where the servers may be. I have a question pending about that. In that event I would thing a Volume Manager maybe in order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Hi bobbee,
(did you lose the list serve's address - where you been?)
2 servers are fine for a MSCS cluster for MQ. The 3rd server concept comes from SQL Server and database mirroring, where the 3rd server serves the role of a witness, to prevent the mirror server from incorrectly assuming the primary is down and allowing it's copy of the DB to go live.
If your 2 nodes for an MSCS cluster to support MQ are close enough to allow a fiber connection and synchronous updates to the same SAN, you can get automatic H.A. The 2 nodes will have 2 or more links with each other ideally over seperate network paths to heartbeat each other to make sure one node doesn't try to bring up the cluster group while the other is still up.
If this distance is far enough for your company to consider it DR as well, great for you, H.A. and DR in one shot, but typically the DR data center is going to be several hunderd miles not allowing what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. In that case you put both nodes in the same data center, ideally as far apart as possible and use them for local automatic H.A., and then use a 3rd server in the DR center for DR.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bobbee |
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 545
Location: Tampa
|
Hi Peter, Thanks for the information.
Ahhh, the Listserv, memories!! My blue resposibilities and worldly jet setting as a result don't leave time for much anymore. I had to bow out.
I run my own unofficial Listserv inside the firewall, I am a daily answer man for all sorstof things. Breathing tends to be an option!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
