I am newbie in SQL server and have one, maybe dumb question.
I have SQL2000 cluster on Windows 2003 with shared storage on SAN.
Cluster operates with one database only.
I need to temporary attach second database to SQL server, but problem is
that I do not have enought free space on shared storage to place both
databases. It is possible to attach another database in cluster
environment from local one node drive ? No fail-over needed. Problem is
that SQL server in cluster see only shared drives. It should look like
one database in cluster environment and one in not.
Maybe with two instances or virtual servers ?
Thanx.
Short answer is no.
Longer explanation is that in a cluster, all SQL data files must be on a
cluster disk resource that the SQL server is dependant on. YOu cannot use
local storage in a SQL 2000 cluster implementation.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"zycha" <zycha@.NOT_FOR_SPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:OnDuY9v8EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am newbie in SQL server and have one, maybe dumb question.
> I have SQL2000 cluster on Windows 2003 with shared storage on SAN.
> Cluster operates with one database only.
> I need to temporary attach second database to SQL server, but problem is
> that I do not have enought free space on shared storage to place both
> databases. It is possible to attach another database in cluster
> environment from local one node drive ? No fail-over needed. Problem is
> that SQL server in cluster see only shared drives. It should look like
> one database in cluster environment and one in not.
> Maybe with two instances or virtual servers ?
> Thanx.
|||Hello.
It may be possible to use a mount point. I've done this with two shared physical disk resources that were in the same resource group. That is: I created a folder in a formatted partition on physical disk 1 (let's call it "I:\NDF") and mounted a formatted partition from physical disk 2 on I:\NDF.
I was able to create SQL server data files on the mounted volume, even though the physical disk resource (2) was not in the SQL server resource dependancy list. Apparently SQL server doesn't know that the filesystem has a mount point, but why would it care?
Now, I'm not sure if it will work with a "local" disk, but you may try if you are feeling adventurous. Also, this was on Win2KAS, not 2.003K
Interestingly, and despite warnings against doing this (warnings which I did not read until after it had been operational in a production environment for months), the SQL server worked fine and even went through failovers without a hitch.
It will definitely not survive a failover if you use a local disk, however.
Anyway, I would not normally "suggest" doing this, because it is not supported, but it may be a viable option if you just need a few rows out of a table somewhere.
Goog Luck
jg|||Geoff N. Hiten wrote:
> Short answer is no.
> Longer explanation is that in a cluster, all SQL data files must be on a
> cluster disk resource that the SQL server is dependant on. YOu cannot use
> local storage in a SQL 2000 cluster implementation.
>
thanx
