Quantcast
Channel: SQL Server High Availability and Disaster Recovery forum
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4532

Doubt sore Always On

$
0
0
Friends,

I am beginning to understand the concept of SQL Always On.

In my lab I usually configure a cluster in SQL, starting with the (New Cluster SQL Faiolver) option and then (Add node in SQL Cluster).

I was reading about Always On because it looks like it offers me a better scenario than the Faiolver Cluster, but I was confused.

My current concept is that a traditional sql cluster, I have LUNs that are presented to my nodes and I install the instance on a first node and then I'm adding as many sql nodes as I want. In this scenario one server fails the other will take over. That means my point of failure is the LUN.

In the case of AlwaysOn, I will have on each node a LUN to store all the databases that will not be in the cluster.

In the case of AlwasOn, I understood that each node will have its instance inidividual, no matter what name I provide in the SQL server installation. In fact I do a standlone installation on each node.

I create the cluster faiolver, but it does not have any disk.

After that, I enable Always On in the SQL configuration service and configure it in SQL Server, where I will create an availability group and include the primary node and secondary nodes that will replicate.

When I go to SQL Server Managing studio, will I use the availability group name? Or am I going to have to use what he names listener?

In case I have a SQL server with multiple intents, is this relevant to the availability group?

Your I already have a traditional cluster, I think it's called FCI. Can I use it with Always On?

If anyone can give me an example when I respond, I feel more comfortable understanding.

Thank you.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4532

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>