SQL Server cluster: Why wouldn't I want SQL Server in the 'Cluster Group'?

On our clusters we've followed the best practice of putting all SQL Server resources in their own cluster group. The problem is that now we see instances where something will cause SQL Server to fail so the SQL Server group fails over to the other node while the Windows cluster resources remain on the first node. Why would I want that? It seems to me that I want one node to own both the SQL Server and Windows cluster resources at all times.

Thanks
pteddyAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

tigin44Commented:
At SQL Server 200 clusters if any resource fails, all the node resourses failover to the other node. But At SQL Sever 2005 this not the default case. There is a property for the resources named "Affect the node", when you right click on cluster resources and select properties you can find it... Check them to affect the rosource group.
0
pteddyAuthor Commented:
tigin44 - Thanks for your response. I don't see the "affect the node" option you mentioned. In the advanced tab of the resource's properties there is an "affect the group" option but that still would not fail over all the groups.

Thanks
0
tigin44Commented:
forgive me,  it should be "affect the group" as you mentioned. By checking this boxex on the resources you instruct the cluster to move all the resources to the other node id any of the resources fail. You may exclude such the resources full text search or sql agent to cause the group to failover.
0
10 Tips to Protect Your Business from Ransomware

Did you know that ransomware is the most widespread, destructive malware in the world today? It accounts for 39% of all security breaches, with ransomware gangsters projected to make $11.5B in profits from online extortion by 2019.

pteddyAuthor Commented:
But that would not address the problem we have. If SQL Server fails and the cluster service moves the group it will still leave the other cluster groups on the original node, right?

Thanks
0
tigin44Commented:
if their resources didnt failed then they will stay in where they are. moving groups is not good, since moving operation alll users lost their connection ad your SQL server service takes some time to start up again. Why do you want the other groups to move to the other nodes as well?
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
pteddyAuthor Commented:
well from an organizational viewpoint I want to have all my resources on the same machine. If some are on one machine and some on others I'm not basically dealing with an active/active cluster instead of active/passive.

At any rate, it doesn't sound like what I want is possible.

Thanks
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SQL Server 2005

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.