JamesNT
asked on
Adding File Server Role to in-guest cluster
Windows Server 2012 R2 with Update.
We already have a Hyper-V cluster that is working fine. We created an in-guest SQL Server 2014 cluster on top of the Hyper-V cluster and that is working fine. We decided to add the File Server role to the SQL Server in-guest cluster. The in-guest cluster has three storage volumes:
1. Cluster Disk 1 - Cluster Shared Volume used to store the SQL Server database only.
2. Cluster Disk 2 - Disk Witness in Quorum.
3. Cluster Disk 3 - Cluster Shared Volume currently Unused
When I run through the wizard to add the File Server role, I choose "File Server for General Use" I then choose an IP address and give it a name. The next step is to choose storage and the wizard says No Storage is Available.
Question: How can I make the wizard use Cluster Disk 3?
Thank you for your help.
JamesNT
We already have a Hyper-V cluster that is working fine. We created an in-guest SQL Server 2014 cluster on top of the Hyper-V cluster and that is working fine. We decided to add the File Server role to the SQL Server in-guest cluster. The in-guest cluster has three storage volumes:
1. Cluster Disk 1 - Cluster Shared Volume used to store the SQL Server database only.
2. Cluster Disk 2 - Disk Witness in Quorum.
3. Cluster Disk 3 - Cluster Shared Volume currently Unused
When I run through the wizard to add the File Server role, I choose "File Server for General Use" I then choose an IP address and give it a name. The next step is to choose storage and the wizard says No Storage is Available.
Question: How can I make the wizard use Cluster Disk 3?
Thank you for your help.
JamesNT
ASKER
Unfortunately, those are the requirements. From a licensing standpoint and others, we have to be frugal. Setting up another in-guest cluster just for File Server role has been shot down for now.
James
James
James,
You already have a cluster on Hyper-V. That's your failover protection for an HA VM that hosts the file services, and other roles. I am not suggesting to set up another cluster when one is already there and ready to host workloads.
You already have a cluster on Hyper-V. That's your failover protection for an HA VM that hosts the file services, and other roles. I am not suggesting to set up another cluster when one is already there and ready to host workloads.
ASKER
Setting up a VM on the Hyper-V cluster just for the file services role would still consume another license - which we don't have (we are using Windows Server Standard for all the licensing). Further, a single VM is HA when it comes to hardware failures, but not software failures (e.g. bad patch). That's why we wanted to utilized an existing in-guest cluster.
James
James
James,
I'm not getting the point?
A cluster is a cluster. If a patch toasts one of the Hyper-V hosts the VMs saddle up on the other host.
Is this what the goal is? TechNet: Windows Server 2012 Continuous Availability File Server feature
There's a How-To in there to get things going via Failover Cluster Manager.
Would we do it on an already deployed SQL cluster setup? Flat out no.
Point of Clarification: In a cluster setting 2 VMs running on two nodes require two Windows Server Standard licenses (1:2 across two nodes). 4 VMs running on a two node Hyper-V cluster would require four licenses (1:2 across two nodes).
EDIT: License clarification assumes one or two CPUs per physical host.
I'm not getting the point?
A cluster is a cluster. If a patch toasts one of the Hyper-V hosts the VMs saddle up on the other host.
Is this what the goal is? TechNet: Windows Server 2012 Continuous Availability File Server feature
There's a How-To in there to get things going via Failover Cluster Manager.
Would we do it on an already deployed SQL cluster setup? Flat out no.
Point of Clarification: In a cluster setting 2 VMs running on two nodes require two Windows Server Standard licenses (1:2 across two nodes). 4 VMs running on a two node Hyper-V cluster would require four licenses (1:2 across two nodes).
EDIT: License clarification assumes one or two CPUs per physical host.
ASKER
So what happens when a bad patch toasts the VM? At that point you are still down. You would have to have two VM's in an in-guest cluster on top of the Hyper-V cluster for true HA - which we already have it's just running SQL also.
Regarding licensing, you are asking me to set up one - two more VM's and we are out of licenses.
James
Regarding licensing, you are asking me to set up one - two more VM's and we are out of licenses.
James
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I'm of the same mind. I really don't want to have an already running SQL Server in-guest cluster running another role. I think I'm going to go to the higher-ups and just tell them like it is. Surely they can afford $1600 for two more Standard licenses.
James
James
James,
If the server setup is recent an OEM license pair may be had for less cost.
Thanks for the points eh! :)
If the server setup is recent an OEM license pair may be had for less cost.
Thanks for the points eh! :)
ASKER
Wait, how many points did you get?? I don't see anywhere on this thing to allocate points!
I ALWAYS post all questions with 500 points. At least, that's how things were done on the old interface (500 was the default). Not quite use to this one.
James
I ALWAYS post all questions with 500 points. At least, that's how things were done on the old interface (500 was the default). Not quite use to this one.
James
I see 500 points on my end. The new UI has been modified at least twice in the last year or so? I've hopelessly lost my cheese ... ;)
For file services, a cluster within a cluster really doesn't make any sense? What would be accomplished by this?
I suggest setting up an HA VM that is dedicated to the file services role on the Hyper-V cluster.