Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by QnJpYW4gQ2 » Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:23:07


A client of ours wants to run a clustered instance of SQL and not have it
dependent on name resolution for anything.

Since it appears that SQL is heavily dependent on AD and DNS for the virtual
server piece, does this dependancy constitute a single point of failure?
 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by Hilary Cot » Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:55:04

You will need DNS and AD for installing a SQL Server cluster or adding nodes
to it.

The nodes themselves don't necessarily need an active DC or DNS. In fact you
should enter the node, and cluster name in the host file to reduce the
amount of time a node requires to go online.




--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.yqcomputer.com/




virtual

 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by QnJpYW4gQ2 » Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:19:01

Hilary, thanks for the validation. I know that AD and DNS is required, I just
am having problems convincing the client that they are required. I have
pointed out multiple articles in SQL books online, and TechNet/Support items
that also say the same thing.

Must have assumptions are not a satisfactory answer for this client. They
need to see it it writing that it must have explicitly AD/DNS.

Brian
 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by Hilary Cot » Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:52:39

I'd try to run cluster administrator to create a new cluster on a standalone
win2003 and take screen shots of it failing because it can't register the
cluster name in AD, or the IP address for the cluster in DNS.

--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.yqcomputer.com/




just
items

nodes
you


it
failure?
 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by QnJpYW4gQ2 » Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:11:03

Hillary, here is the kicker for you. I don't know how they did it, however
they got the cluster and sql to run without the domain controllers/dns
servers. I will be heading over there in a little while to figure out what
they did.

Either way I know it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft, and I
cannot guarantee that it will not fail completely at some point and bite them
in the *** .

Brian
 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by QnJpYW4gQ2 » Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:59:05

ilary, the following items were changed on both nodes of the cluster and
allows the resources to function correctly without AD/DNS.

MSSQLSERVER service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
unchecked.

SQLSERVERAGENT service to use LocalSystem Account, Interact with Desktop
unchecked.

Cluster Service to use local user account which has admin rights. Use same
account and password for both computers.

Following items added to lmhosts file;

10.50.32.34 NOCTMDS-DBTSQL #PRE //SQL Server Virtual IP
10.50.32.35 NOCTMDS-DBTEST #PRE //Microsoft Cluster Server
Virtual IP

DNS servers removed from TCP/IP Properties.

Enable NetBIOS over TCP/IP.

Only other change that was made is to /flushdns from both computers. Both
AD/DNS servers are turned off.

Cluster failover occurs normally.

First question is why does this work?

Is this a supported configuration by Microsoft, or does this go against
est Practicesfor any specific reason?

If not supported by Microsoft, what is the down side to running in this
manner, and what problems could be expected by not using a Domain\Username
account for the services?

Any white papers, tech notes, releasable internal documents that specify it
must be done one way or the other (AD/DNS or Not needed) would be greatly
appreciated.


"Brian Cook" wrote:
>> Hillary, here is the kicker for you. I don't know how they did it, however >> they got the cluster and sql to run without the domain controllers/dns >> servers. I will be heading over there in a little while to figure out what >> they did. >> >> Either way I know it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft, and I >> cannot guarantee that it will not fail completely at some point and bite them >> in the fanny. >> >> Brian >> >> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: >> >>>> I'd try to run cluster administrator to create a new cluster on a standalone >>>> win2003 and take screen shots of it failing because it can't register the >>>> cluster name in AD, or the IP address for the cluster in DNS. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Hilary Cotter >>>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book? >>>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html >>>> >>>> >>>> "Brian Cook"<< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >> wrote in message >>>> news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ... >>>>>> Hilary, thanks for the validation. I know that AD and DNS is required, I >>>> just >>>>>> am having problems convincing the client that they are required. I have >>>>>> pointed out multiple articles in SQL books online, and TechNet/Support >>>> items >>>>>> that also say the same thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Must have assumptions are not a satisfactory answer for this client. They >>>>>> need to see it it writing that it must have explicitly AD/DNS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> You will need DNS and AD for installing a SQL Server cluster or adding >>>> nodes >>>>>>>> to it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The nodes themselves don't necessarily need an active DC or DNS. In fact >>>> you >>>>>>>> should enter the node, and cluster name in the host file to reduce the >>>>>>>> amount of time a node requires to go online. >>>>&
 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by Hilary Cot » Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:27:10

hat version of the OS are we talking about 2000 or 2003?

2003 does seem to require AD and DNS to be live when creating the cluster.

It does appear that somehow they have managed to create a cluster without an
active DNS or AD. I don't believe Microsoft will support this configuration.

--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html


"Brian Cook" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
it
however
what
I
them
standalone
the
required, I
have
TechNet/Support
They
adding
In fact
the
message
not have
the


 
 
 

Can a clustered SQL 2000 installation run without DNS

Post by QnJpYW4gQ2 » Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:55:07

ilary, this is a two node W2K3 installation. We have replicated it in our
lab and it is working. I am opening a case with Microsoft today to confirm my
suspicions that it is not a support configuration, and also see if there are
any down sides to this configuration.

My concern is that since we are developing an application that uses SQL, yet
does not rely on the "name" of the db server, and at some point down the
road, if the cluster fails, and stops working will it be because of the way
the system is configured or something else as it is not configured as it was
designed to be used, and our company end up with the liability for the
failure.

Brian

"Hilary Cotter" wrote: