If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
We are trying to setup a system to system failover cluster using two
nodes (x346) which each have a single hba running to seperate controllers on the DS400. For full redundnancy, IBM recommends dual path from each node but we dont need that. The current setup has two completly seperate paths. hba on node 1 to controller A on DS400 and hba on node 2 to controller B. If i take a controller offline, failover works fine to jumo to other controller and throw all resources to it's node but if i shutdown a node- the cluster loses all attached storage and DS400 is unaware to switch ownership to other controller. Is there a way to us mscs without dual path from each node? anotherwords... if either node or controller fails on a single path, we want the other path to become active. our main goal is to use sql server 2005 clustering on the cluster. everything checks out perfect if i only use one controller on the DS400 for both nodes but this brings us back to another single point of failure. I saw that Qlogic has MPIO drivers on thir website for the DS400 but it seems as though they are for 32bit systems and the install errors out with: C:\Drivers\mpio\1.0.8.4 (w32)install.exe -i Pre-Installing the Multi-Path Adapter Filter... Success Installing the Multi-Path Bus Driver... Failure. Error code (0xe0000235) configuration: 2 X IBM x346 w/ single QLogic 2340 HBAs running win2k3 64bit Enterprise DS400 w/ dual controllers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
wrote in message
oups.com... We are trying to setup a system to system failover cluster using two nodes (x346) which each have a single hba running to seperate controllers on the DS400. For full redundnancy, IBM recommends dual path from each node but we dont need that. The current setup has two completly seperate paths. hba on node 1 to controller A on DS400 and hba on node 2 to controller B. If i take a controller offline, failover works fine to jumo to other controller and throw all resources to it's node but if i shutdown a node- the cluster loses all attached storage and DS400 is unaware to switch ownership to other controller. Is there a way to us mscs without dual path from each node? anotherwords... if either node or controller fails on a single path, we want the other path to become active. It sounds like you're trying to persuade the DS400 to control your failover action. You're making a LUN available to one node, and when a failure occurs you're expecting the DS400 to switch ownership of that LUN to the other node so it can proceed. That's not what you want. You want both nodes to see and share the LUN(s) on the DS400 at all times. Mscs will then figure out between the two nodes which one will access the LUN. Rob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
logically that would make sense that MSCS would be responsible for
everything. however.... both nodes are able to see the storage but can only read the drives when the respective controller is the active one. both initiators have access to all the LUNs on the storage. both HBAs have access to all LUNs It sounds like you're trying to persuade the DS400 to control your failover action. You're making a LUN available to one node, and when a failure occurs you're expecting the DS400 to switch ownership of that LUN to the other node so it can proceed. That's not what you want. You want both nodes to see and share the LUN(s) on the DS400 at all times. Mscs will then figure out between the two nodes which one will access the LUN. Rob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
wrote in message
ups.com... logically that would make sense that MSCS would be responsible for everything. however.... both nodes are able to see the storage but can only read the drives when the respective controller is the active one. both initiators have access to all the LUNs on the storage. both HBAs have access to all LUNs The DS400 wasn't certified for MSCS when it was initially introduced. If you have a model from before mid-2005 then you may need to update firmware or contact IBM about the exact features required to make it work with MSCS. The latest firmware is available from Adaptec's website: http://www.adaptec.com/ibm/downloads...ems_index.html Rob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
logically that would make sense that MSCS would be responsible for
everything. however.... both nodes are able to see the storage but can only read the drives when the respective controller is the active one. both initiators have access to all the LUNs on the storage. both HBAs have access to all LUNs It sounds like you're trying to persuade the DS400 to control your failover action. You're making a LUN available to one node, and when a failure occurs you're expecting the DS400 to switch ownership of that LUN to the other node so it can proceed. That's not what you want. You want both nodes to see and share the LUN(s) on the DS400 at all times. Mscs will then figure out between the two nodes which one will access the LUN. Rob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
failover cluster using 64 bit windows 2k3 on single HBAs and DS400 with dual controller
OK,
we have now added to the configuration to provide multipaths to both nodes from both controllers. Each node now has two HBAs with with connections to both controllers. It seems as though everything is working as expected with failover occuring system to system if the node fails and also controller to controller if the controller fails. When I do a failover from system to system, it works flawlessly. When i Do a failover from controller to controller however, the active node seems to kick in fine when the resources are bak up and available but shows an error in taskbar and event log saying: windowsDelayed Write Failed: Windows was unable to save all the data for the file M:\ The data has been lost. This error may be caused by a failure of your computer hardware or network connection. Please try to save this file elsewhere. Since this cluster is being used for a SQL Server 2005 cluster, losing data is not something we would like to do. The controllers have 256 battery backup memory on them. Since this is the case, are the controllers taking care of this issue and windows is just not aware of it or do we actually have an issue where we might lose data? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IBM DS300 v.s. DS400 | Simon | Storage & Hardrives | 4 | November 24th 05 10:54 PM |