Can two separate SQL Server instances on a clustered box share the same resource name such as SQ

I am setting up a two active instances of MS SQL Server on a clustered box. In the past I have set up using the nomenclature SQLCLUSTERNAME\INSTANCE-NAME such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS2\INST2.

But, this time the client will like it installed such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2. I did not think this is possible That is I assumed that cluster resource names have to be unique. But, nevertheless I have tried to do so for the last few days, but no luck.

Can someone please let me know if it is indeed possible to have two separate instances in a single cluster.

BTW, I know this is quite possible with non-clustered instances where the SQLSERV1\INST1 refers to an actual server name, and not a resource name.

You are partially correct.

You CAN have two separate instances in a cluster -but in order for the cluster resource names on both instances to be the same, both instances will have to be installed on the same node. You could do that, making it an Active-Passive cluster -but I don't think that is what you desire. So if you wish both nodes to be Active, then you will have to continue using distinctive resource names (as in your first surmise.)

|||BTW, how would you set up. One Active, and one passive with different instance names.|||The same way that you set up an Active-Active cluster, except you put both instances on the same node.|||I am still a little unsure. Will the instances have names such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2 or SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS2\INST2.

- Daniel|||

If you are asking about two instances on the same host, then SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2 would work.

Instance names can be whatever you desire. The virtual server name will be the same in both cases.

Can two separate SQL Server instances on a clustered box share the same resource name such as SQ

I am setting up a two active instances of MS SQL Server on a clustered box. In the past I have set up using the nomenclature SQLCLUSTERNAME\INSTANCE-NAME such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS2\INST2.

But, this time the client will like it installed such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2. I did not think this is possible That is I assumed that cluster resource names have to be unique. But, nevertheless I have tried to do so for the last few days, but no luck.

Can someone please let me know if it is indeed possible to have two separate instances in a single cluster.

BTW, I know this is quite possible with non-clustered instances where the SQLSERV1\INST1 refers to an actual server name, and not a resource name.

You are partially correct.

You CAN have two separate instances in a cluster -but in order for the cluster resource names on both instances to be the same, both instances will have to be installed on the same node. You could do that, making it an Active-Passive cluster -but I don't think that is what you desire. So if you wish both nodes to be Active, then you will have to continue using distinctive resource names (as in your first surmise.)

|||BTW, how would you set up. One Active, and one passive with different instance names.
|||The same way that you set up an Active-Active cluster, except you put both instances on the same node.|||I am still a little unsure. Will the instances have names such as SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2 or SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS2\INST2.

- Daniel
|||

If you are asking about two instances on the same host, then SQLCLUS1\INST1 and SQLCLUS1\INST2 would work.

Instance names can be whatever you desire. The virtual server name will be the same in both cases.

sql

Can SQL server 2000 publisher work normally with SQL Server 2005 subscriber ?

or is there any resource about it?

SQL 2000 publisher will work OK with SQL 2005 Subscriber as long as the Distributor is SQL Server 2005 for Transactional Replication.

For Merge replication, Publisher and Distributor have to be SQL 2005. However SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 can both act as subscribers.

For further information, please see BOL topic:
Using Multiple Versions of SQL Server in a Replication Topology|||

thanks for your reply.

I notice that that the publisher can be any version as long as it's newer or eque to the publisher version.

if it is a readonly subscriber ,the subscriber can be any version.

BTW,all of the version is newer than sql 7.0 sp4.

Thanks again.

Can someone explain this message?

Server: Msg 1204, Level 19, State 1, Line 30 The SQL Server cannot obtain a
LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active
users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock and
memory configuration.
We can't find it in BOL.
Peace & happy computing,
Mike Labosh, MCSD
"When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
Kill many, and you're a conquerer.
Kill them all and you're a god." -- Dave MustaneMike,
Sounds like a lock issue or possibly a memory issue. What does the
following reveal?
exec sp_configure 'locks'
exec sp_configure 'min server memory'
exec sp_configure 'max server memory'
How much memory is available on the system? How much is SQL Server
currently using?
HTH
Jerry
"Mike Labosh" <mlabosh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uVtXrEgvFHA.3556@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Server: Msg 1204, Level 19, State 1, Line 30 The SQL Server cannot obtain
> a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer
> active users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
> and memory configuration.
>
> We can't find it in BOL.
> --
> Peace & happy computing,
> Mike Labosh, MCSD
> "When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
> Kill many, and you're a conquerer.
> Kill them all and you're a god." -- Dave Mustane
>|||Maybe here?
http://support.microsoft.com/search...SE&ast=2&mode=a
"Mike Labosh" <mlabosh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uVtXrEgvFHA.3556@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Server: Msg 1204, Level 19, State 1, Line 30 The SQL Server cannot obtain
> a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer
> active users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
> and memory configuration.
>
> We can't find it in BOL.
> --
> Peace & happy computing,
> Mike Labosh, MCSD
> "When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
> Kill many, and you're a conquerer.
> Kill them all and you're a god." -- Dave Mustane
>|||> http://support.microsoft.com/search...SE&ast=2&mode=a
I read the article, printed it and showed it to her. Yep, that's exactly
what she's doing.
Loop over SampleSourceArchive table, processing child records. We're
currently in an email-war about "WHY NOT JUST DO A JOIN YOU SILLY USER!!"
Peace & happy computing,
Mike Labosh, MCSD
"When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
Kill many, and you're a conquerer.
Kill them all and you're a god." -- Dave Mustane|||> Sounds like a lock issue or possibly a memory issue. What does the
> following reveal?
> exec sp_configure 'locks'
> exec sp_configure 'min server memory'
> exec sp_configure 'max server memory'
> How much memory is available on the system? How much is SQL Server
> currently using?
Min Locks = 5000
Max Locks = 2 Billion (and some change)
Min Server Memory = 0 -> 2GB
Max Server Memory = 4MB -> 2GB
The server has 3 GB of hard RAM (Can't tell the swap file size from here)
but it looks like SQL Server is set to use anywhere between 0 and 2GB of
memory, if I have interpreted this correctly.
I think she is just applying her "expert" MS Access skills to SQL Server.
Peace & happy computing,
Mike Labosh, MCSD
"When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
Kill many, and you're a conqueror.
Kill them all and you're a god." -- Dave Mustane