Multiple IP's (from 2 different networks) on a single SQL 2005 Cluster

Hello there,
I'm currently building up a SQL 2005 Active/Standby cluster in a DMZ. I have three NIC's in each server.
Each NIC is connected to a different network:
192.168.100.1 is the public NIC
10.0.0.1 is the NIC used for communication betwen the cluster nodes (heartbeat)
192.168.200.1 is the admin NIC
I have installed my cluster using the 192.168.100.0 network for public access. This means that my SQL virtual ip is 192.168.100.10
Each server can be administered over the 192.168.200.0 network (admin) and the cluster/sql sever ip is available from the 192.168.100.0 (public) network.
Now for my question: How can I assign a ip address from my admin network (e.g.192.168.200.10) to the existing SQL server cluster to make it available from my admin network while keeping the public ip.
Thanx in advance!
Chris
From http://www.developmentnow.com/g/99_2004_12_1_0_0/sql-server-clustering.htm
Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups
http://www.developmentnow.com
"chrismk" <Multiple IP's (from 2 different networks) on a single SQL 2005
Cluster> wrote in message
news:59d2db33-7eb3-4b9e-af0f-fd54c5d3d72b@.developmentnow.com...
> I'm currently building up a SQL 2005 Active/Standby cluster in a DMZ. I
> have three NIC's in each server.
BTW, I am not trying to be a pain, but some of the issues here have me
extremely curious. First, why are you putting it in the perimeter network?
You should have it behind the internal firewall so the data is fully
protected and have anything that runs in the perimeter network to make its
calls through the internal firewall using a non-standard port. Data needs to
be protected.

> Each NIC is connected to a different network:
> 192.168.100.1 is the public NIC
> 10.0.0.1 is the NIC used for communication betwen the cluster nodes
> (heartbeat)
> 192.168.200.1 is the admin NIC
Why do you need an admin NIC. There is this concept of IP routing that
should make this requirement go away. <G>

> I have installed my cluster using the 192.168.100.0 network for public
> access. This means that my SQL virtual ip is 192.168.100.10
> Each server can be administered over the 192.168.200.0 network (admin) and
> the cluster/sql sever ip is available from the 192.168.100.0 (public)
> network.
> Now for my question: How can I assign a ip address from my admin network
> (e.g.192.168.200.10) to the existing SQL server cluster to make it
> available from my admin network while keeping the public ip.
It should work. Add the new IP Address resource and set the dependencies on
all the other resources as needed.
However, just because it should work does not mean it is your best
alternative.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Dec 10 - 13 in Denver
Jan 18 - 31 in Denver
|||Check out the following KB articles:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190460.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177447.aspx
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"chrismk" <Multiple IP's (from 2 different networks) on a single SQL 2005
Cluster> wrote in message
news:59d2db33-7eb3-4b9e-af0f-fd54c5d3d72b@.developmentnow.com...
Hello there,
I'm currently building up a SQL 2005 Active/Standby cluster in a DMZ. I have
three NIC's in each server.
Each NIC is connected to a different network:
192.168.100.1 is the public NIC
10.0.0.1 is the NIC used for communication betwen the cluster nodes
(heartbeat)
192.168.200.1 is the admin NIC
I have installed my cluster using the 192.168.100.0 network for public
access. This means that my SQL virtual ip is 192.168.100.10
Each server can be administered over the 192.168.200.0 network (admin) and
the cluster/sql sever ip is available from the 192.168.100.0 (public)
network.
Now for my question: How can I assign a ip address from my admin network
(e.g.192.168.200.10) to the existing SQL server cluster to make it
available from my admin network while keeping the public ip.
Thanx in advance!
Chris
From
http://www.developmentnow.com/g/99_2004_12_1_0_0/sql-server-clustering.htm
Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups
http://www.developmentnow.com

Multiple Instances SQL2K and 2005

Hi, we have a 2 node cluster running Server 2003 with a single instance of
SQL 2005. We are looking to migrate as many apps as possible to SQL 2005,
but will likely need to keep a SQL2000 instance. In addition, we want to
isolate some of the SQL databases that are web accessible and will setup an
instance for that. So, are there any reservations running this:
(2) SQL 2005 instances
(1) SQL 2000 instance
on the same cluster? We have Enterprise edition of the OS and SQL Server.
We plan to run a multi instance setup with an active and passive node so all
3 instances would run on the same node. The hardware should be able to
handle all 3 instances.
Also, any special steps to install SQL service packs in this scenario?
Thanks,
TJ
TJ,
There is no issue running SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on the same machine. I have
done so in Production with no issues. Infact I currently have SQL 2000, SQL
2005 and SQL 2008 installed on my laptop side by side.
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"TJ" wrote:

> Hi, we have a 2 node cluster running Server 2003 with a single instance of
> SQL 2005. We are looking to migrate as many apps as possible to SQL 2005,
> but will likely need to keep a SQL2000 instance. In addition, we want to
> isolate some of the SQL databases that are web accessible and will setup an
> instance for that. So, are there any reservations running this:
> (2) SQL 2005 instances
> (1) SQL 2000 instance
> on the same cluster? We have Enterprise edition of the OS and SQL Server.
> We plan to run a multi instance setup with an active and passive node so all
> 3 instances would run on the same node. The hardware should be able to
> handle all 3 instances.
> Also, any special steps to install SQL service packs in this scenario?
> Thanks,
> TJ
>

Multiple Instances on the same virtual server?

Is this possible?
I would like to have 2 instances on my virtual SQL 2005 cluster,
listening on different ports.
For example, if my virtual hostname is HOSTNAME123 can I have one
instance on HOSTNAME123, port 1433 and the second instance on
HOSTNAME123, port 1432?
Or does each clustered instance need its own, distinct hostname?
Thanks in advance.
No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
Linchi
"brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:

> Is this possible?
> I would like to have 2 instances on my virtual SQL 2005 cluster,
> listening on different ports.
> For example, if my virtual hostname is HOSTNAME123 can I have one
> instance on HOSTNAME123, port 1433 and the second instance on
> HOSTNAME123, port 1432?
> Or does each clustered instance need its own, distinct hostname?
> Thanks in advance.
>
|||Thanks for your response.
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
> its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
> Linchi
> "brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:
|||I dont think Linchi has correct information here.
Without having tested this, SQL 2005 supports Volume Mount Points(VMP). So,
you can install numerous instances on one VirtualServerName. They need to
have unique IP and Instance Name.
Am I off here or is this VMP only supported on non-clustered installations?
VMP should help the driveletter saturations problems that large installations
experienced during SQL2000.
Any thoughts on this?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
> its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
> Linchi
> "brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:
|||Linchi is correct, you need a separate clustered group and network name for
every instance.
Now onto the VMP issue. I think you are confusing disks with names now. Yes,
SQL2005 supports VMP. The support is for any type of SQL install, clustered
or not.
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"ipconfig2" <ipconfig2@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF86C624-8B4F-4FB6-9F44-B301D7EE8BA6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I dont think Linchi has correct information here.
> Without having tested this, SQL 2005 supports Volume Mount Points(VMP).
> So,
> you can install numerous instances on one VirtualServerName. They need to
> have unique IP and Instance Name.
> Am I off here or is this VMP only supported on non-clustered
> installations?
> VMP should help the driveletter saturations problems that large
> installations
> experienced during SQL2000.
> Any thoughts on this?
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
sql

multiple instances on one virtual server

In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
Thanks!
No. Each virtual server can host exactly one instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D02ECF04-7BC1-41B5-B35D-88D938E28FCC@.microsoft.com...
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!
|||Hi,
Yes you can do that.
It is called a Multiple-Instance cluster. A Multile-Instance cluster
supports upto four nodes and supports 16 instances (1 default and 15 named or
16 named). This implementation requires extensive planning as each virtual
server requires its own disk resources that can not be shared by other
instances.
Hth
DeeJay Puar
MCDBA
"Robert Kinesta" wrote:

> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!

multiple instances on one virtual server

In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
Thanks!No. Each virtual server can host exactly one instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D02ECF04-7BC1-41B5-B35D-88D938E28FCC@.microsoft.com...
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!|||Hi,
Yes you can do that.
It is called a Multiple-Instance cluster. A Multile-Instance cluster
supports upto four nodes and supports 16 instances (1 default and 15 named o
r
16 named). This implementation requires extensive planning as each virtual
server requires its own disk resources that can not be shared by other
instances.
Hth
DeeJay Puar
MCDBA
"Robert Kinesta" wrote:

> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!

multiple instances on one virtual server

In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
Thanks!No. Each virtual server can host exactly one instance.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D02ECF04-7BC1-41B5-B35D-88D938E28FCC@.microsoft.com...
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!|||Hi,
Yes you can do that.
It is called a Multiple-Instance cluster. A Multile-Instance cluster
supports upto four nodes and supports 16 instances (1 default and 15 named or
16 named). This implementation requires extensive planning as each virtual
server requires its own disk resources that can not be shared by other
instances.
Hth
DeeJay Puar
MCDBA
"Robert Kinesta" wrote:
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!

Multiple instances on cluster

On a stand alone server, our naming convention for multiple instances is:
server (default instance)
server\IN1 (first named instance)
server\IN2 (second named instance)
etc, etc
Now, on a cluster, I understand the SQL name is made up of
virtualservername\instancename
So say the default instance is installed on the cluster as virtual name =
"server". We would refer to this server as "server"
Say the first named instance is IN1. Am I right in thinking I cannot use the
same virtual server name as the default instance because this name is used in
the cluster group, therefore I cannot have "server\IN1", "server\IN2", etc on
a cluster?
I would have to use something like
server1\IN1
server2\IN2
etc?
"Stu" <Stu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B9D979DD-7F4F-4B65-A719-6425881C2121@.microsoft.com...
> On a stand alone server, our naming convention for multiple instances is:
> server (default instance)
> server\IN1 (first named instance)
> server\IN2 (second named instance)
> etc, etc
> Now, on a cluster, I understand the SQL name is made up of
> virtualservername\instancename
> So say the default instance is installed on the cluster as virtual name =
> "server". We would refer to this server as "server"
> Say the first named instance is IN1. Am I right in thinking I cannot use
the
> same virtual server name as the default instance because this name is used
in
> the cluster group, therefore I cannot have "server\IN1", "server\IN2", etc
on
> a cluster?
> I would have to use something like
> server1\IN1
> server2\IN2
correct
Rgds,
Edwin.

Multiple Instances on a cluster

I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
Thanks in advance for your help!
Start the install from the node that currently owns the new resource group.
That group should have only the new disk resource in it. SQL will add the
IP address and the network name during the install from information you
supply. The SQL Installer will create a resource group with all the correct
dependencies. I usually rename the resource groups to match the Virtual
Server names so I don't get confused later on.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<sean.frenette@.umassmed.edu> wrote in message
news:1141072994.001225.149140@.p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
> 2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
> 2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
> 1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
> instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
> available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
> When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
> 2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
> resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
> I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
> lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
> If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
> setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
> Thanks in advance for your help!
>
|||I'm confused.....
what is your goal ?
You want to run multiple server instances on a clustered server in a
production environment ?
If so, why?
(Btw...I dont know the answer to your question, but Hopefully we can get to
a solution one way or another)
Greg Jackson
Pdx, Oregon
|||Yep, we are running 2 instances of SQL on the same cluster. We are
getting ready to implement Tumbleweed secure mail product which
requires it's own instance
sql

Multiple Instances on a cluster

I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
Thanks in advance for your help!Start the install from the node that currently owns the new resource group.
That group should have only the new disk resource in it. SQL will add the
IP address and the network name during the install from information you
supply. The SQL Installer will create a resource group with all the correct
dependencies. I usually rename the resource groups to match the Virtual
Server names so I don't get confused later on.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<sean.frenette@.umassmed.edu> wrote in message
news:1141072994.001225.149140@.p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
> 2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
> 2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
> 1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
> instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
> available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
> When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
> 2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
> resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
> I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
> lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
> If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
> setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
> Thanks in advance for your help!
>|||I'm confused.....
what is your goal ?
You want to run multiple server instances on a clustered server in a
production environment ?
If so, why?
(Btw...I dont know the answer to your question, but Hopefully we can get to
a solution one way or another)
Greg Jackson
Pdx, Oregon|||Yep, we are running 2 instances of SQL on the same cluster. We are
getting ready to implement Tumbleweed secure mail product which
requires it's own instance

Multiple Instances on a cluster

I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
Thanks in advance for your help!Start the install from the node that currently owns the new resource group.
That group should have only the new disk resource in it. SQL will add the
IP address and the network name during the install from information you
supply. The SQL Installer will create a resource group with all the correct
dependencies. I usually rename the resource groups to match the Virtual
Server names so I don't get confused later on.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<sean.frenette@.umassmed.edu> wrote in message
news:1141072994.001225.149140@.p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a 2-node, active/passive cluster running SQL Server
> 2000 w/SP4, running just the default instance. I am looking to add a
> 2nd instance, but I have a couple of questions on how to start:
> 1) I understand that you have to re-run the install and create the 2nd
> instance. I've already created a separate resource group and have
> available a 2nd dedicated IP, physical disk, virtual server name, etc.
> When I do the install, which node should I perform the install on?
> 2) Once I have the 2nd instance installed, and I create the SQL Server
> resource, how do I define which instance this resource controls? I.e.
> I thought when I selected SQL Server from the resource list, it would
> lise SQL Server and SQL Server\Instance2, but it did not.
> If anyone has or knows of any step-by-step documentation on how to
> setup a 2nd instance it would be appreciated
> Thanks in advance for your help!
>|||I'm confused.....
what is your goal ?
You want to run multiple server instances on a clustered server in a
production environment ?
If so, why?
(Btw...I dont know the answer to your question, but Hopefully we can get to
a solution one way or another)
Greg Jackson
Pdx, Oregon|||Yep, we are running 2 instances of SQL on the same cluster. We are
getting ready to implement Tumbleweed secure mail product which
requires it's own instance

Multiple instances in SQL Cluster

Hi All,
I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
instances with two nodes?
Thanks a lot,
VM
you can have up to 16 instances installed but even by adding the 3rd you
have to be careful that if a node fails the the remaining Node has enough
memory to run all instances. See Memory Configuration section below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
cheers,
Andy.
"VM" <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAC5F30B-B27B-489E-9311-DD9E18F169D0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is
> having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one
> instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more
> than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can
> have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than
> two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM
|||> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
Linchi
"VM" wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM
|||Linchi and Andy,
Thankyou so much for your replies. Not it makes more sense to me.
Warm regards,
VM
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
> and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
> context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
> have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
> use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
> Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
> okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
> cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
> SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
> SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
> In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
> by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
> SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
> Linchi
> "VM" wrote:

Multiple instances in SQL Cluster

Hi All,
I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
instances with two nodes?
Thanks a lot,
VMyou can have up to 16 instances installed but even by adding the 3rd you
have to be careful that if a node fails the the remaining Node has enough
memory to run all instances. See Memory Configuration section below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
cheers,
Andy.
"VM" <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAC5F30B-B27B-489E-9311-DD9E18F169D0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is
> having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one
> instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more
> than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can
> have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than
> two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
Linchi
"VM" wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||Linchi and Andy,
Thankyou so much for your replies. Not it makes more sense to me.
Warm regards,
VM
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> > one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> > upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
> That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
> and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
> context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
> have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
> use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
> Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
> okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
> cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
> SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
> SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
> In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
> by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
> SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
> Linchi
> "VM" wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> > Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
> > a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
> > and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> > planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> >
> > But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> > one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> > upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
> > instances with two nodes?
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> > VMsql

Multiple instances in SQL Cluster

Hi All,
I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is havin
g
a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
instances with two nodes?
Thanks a lot,
VMyou can have up to 16 instances installed but even by adding the 3rd you
have to be careful that if a node fails the the remaining Node has enough
memory to run all instances. See Memory Configuration section below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
cheers,
Andy.
"VM" <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAC5F30B-B27B-489E-9311-DD9E18F169D0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is
> having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one
> instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more
> than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can
> have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than
> two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than">
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can hav
e
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two[/vbcol
]
That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In
a
cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
Linchi
"VM" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is hav
ing
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instanc
e
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more tha
n
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can hav
e
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than tw
o
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||Linchi and Andy,
Thankyou so much for your replies. Not it makes more sense to me.
Warm regards,
VM
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
> and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
> context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after yo
u
> have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
> use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Clust
er
> Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
> okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. I
n a
> cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. F
or
> SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
> SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
> In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instance
s
> by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
> SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
> Linchi
> "VM" wrote:
>

Multiple instances in a virtual server

We want to create another named instance of SQL Server 2000 (sp 3a) in a SQL
2000 active/active cluster virtual server. We are finding evidence in
several forums (including this one) that we cannot do that : we would need a
new virtual server with its own instance instead. (The problem is our
bespoke software supplier doesn't support that!) Does anybody have any
DEFINITE proof (eg. from Microsoft themselves) that this is the case?
Cheers,
Colin
From BOL. Topic header "Creating a Failover Cluster"
Last bulleted item. 'One Instance...
--SNIP
Elements of a Virtual Server
A virtual server contains:
a.. A combination of one or more disks in a Microsoft Cluster Service
(MSCS) cluster group.
Each MSCS cluster group can contain at most one virtual SQL Server.
b.. A network name for each virtual server. This network name is the
virtual server name.
c.. One or more IP addresses that are used to connect to each virtual
server.
d.. One instance of SQL Server 2000, including a SQL Server resource, a
SQL Server Agent resource, and a full-text resource.
If an administrator uninstalls the instance of SQL Server 2000 within a
virtual server, the virtual server, including all IP addresses and the
network name, is also removed from the MSCS cluster group
--SNIP
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Colin Bunting" <ColinBunting@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4F3951C7-E521-4FDB-95F0-4C07E2B380E0@.microsoft.com...
> We want to create another named instance of SQL Server 2000 (sp 3a) in a
SQL
> 2000 active/active cluster virtual server. We are finding evidence in
> several forums (including this one) that we cannot do that : we would
need a
> new virtual server with its own instance instead. (The problem is our
> bespoke software supplier doesn't support that!) Does anybody have any
> DEFINITE proof (eg. from Microsoft themselves) that this is the case?
> --
> Cheers,
> Colin
>

multiple instances in 1 cluster pair (please advise)

Dear all,
I tried to post this question yesterday but seems like didnt get thru,
so I will again. If duplicate, please ignore this.
Currently there I have a live production SQL server cluster (SQL2000) in
non-Case sensitive mode. The server is rather powerful with 8 CPU. Now
only running at 20% cap. Recently we bought a new software and required
the db to be in Case sensitive mode.
It was recommended to create a new instance for the new s/w. Can anyone
help to advise on the following
1) If I create 1 more new instance on the existing DB, how do I
configure it for failover? I cant find any guide to configure the new
instance for failover. Any link to recommend?
2) Any impact I need to note?
Thank you,
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
You don't need a new instance - just a new database. SQL Server 2000 can
have multiple databases, each with its own collation.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Francis Ang" <angcheek@.starhub.net.sg> wrote in message
news:%23Q8AqPn3EHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Dear all,
I tried to post this question yesterday but seems like didnt get thru,
so I will again. If duplicate, please ignore this.
Currently there I have a live production SQL server cluster (SQL2000) in
non-Case sensitive mode. The server is rather powerful with 8 CPU. Now
only running at 20% cap. Recently we bought a new software and required
the db to be in Case sensitive mode.
It was recommended to create a new instance for the new s/w. Can anyone
help to advise on the following
1) If I create 1 more new instance on the existing DB, how do I
configure it for failover? I cant find any guide to configure the new
instance for failover. Any link to recommend?
2) Any impact I need to note?
Thank you,
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Hi Tom,
Thank you for your reply. I have tried that, although it is working, the
software vendor does not support that configuration. They recommended
new instance. Not sure why either.
Regards,
Francis
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Sounds like the vendor doesn't have much experience with SQL Server 2000.
Well, if they insist, then you're forced to install the extra instance. As
long as you have enough memory and CPU power, then you'll be OK. It's just
that you have to manage two instances, instead of one.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Diamond Star" <Diamond@.Star.com> wrote in message
news:u6hW3Pr3EHA.3316@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your reply. I have tried that, although it is working, the
software vendor does not support that configuration. They recommended
new instance. Not sure why either.
Regards,
Francis
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||But Tom, the DBA dont know how to install a additional instance over the
existing clustered servers. Do you have any guide or link to recommend?
I would really appreciate your help.
Thank you,
Francis Ang
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||It's not that difficult. Just install from the CD as you did for the first
instance. However, the second instance will be a named instance. For
example, if the first instance was called MYSQLSERVER, then you can call the
second one MYSQLSERVER\INST2. The BOL have all the details.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Diamond Star" <Diamond@.Star.com> wrote in message
news:eezVUm33EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
But Tom, the DBA dont know how to install a additional instance over the
existing clustered servers. Do you have any guide or link to recommend?
I would really appreciate your help.
Thank you,
Francis Ang
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Hi Tom,
THanks for the advise. I will inform the DBA of this. If you dont mind,
I have a last question. Do the DBA set up the Clustering services for
the new instance just like the first instance.
THank you for the help,
Francis
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||Since Cluster Services are already set up, you won't need to set it up
again.
One more thing I should add is that the new SQL Server instance will need
its own disks, independent from the first SQL service. Here's what I mean.
Let's say you have 2 physical nodes - NODE1 and NODE2, each with a drive C:
(nonclustered). You have 2 SQL Server instances - SQL1 and SQL2. Both of
these will need a drive for data and another for logs. Thus, you could have
SQL1 with drive D: and E: and SQL2 with drive F: and G:.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Diamond Star" <Diamond@.Star.com> wrote in message
news:unPVf8B4EHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hi Tom,
THanks for the advise. I will inform the DBA of this. If you dont mind,
I have a last question. Do the DBA set up the Clustering services for
the new instance just like the first instance.
THank you for the help,
Francis
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

multiple instances + memory

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.mcse.ms ****
We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
switch instances on the computers.
When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I believe
they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
of 4.
Thx,
Kasper de Jonge
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** mcse.ms - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.mcse.ms
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Hi,
Yes, each instance are independent of each other. So you can define and fix
2 GB RAM for each instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Kasper de Jonge" <kdejonge.nospam@.elkerliek.nl> wrote in message
news:40b6f97f@.post.mcse.ms...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.mcse.ms ****
> We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
> systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
> switch instances on the computers.
> When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I
believe
> they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
> of 4.
> Thx,
> Kasper de Jonge
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** mcse.ms - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.mcse.ms
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

multiple instances + memory

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
switch instances on the computers.
When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB? I believe
they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
of 4.
Thx,
Kasper de Jonge
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Hi,
Yes, each instance are independent of each other. So you can define and fix
2 GB RAM for each instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Kasper de Jonge" <kdejonge.nospam@.elkerliek.nl> wrote in message
news:40b6f97f@.post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
> systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
> switch instances on the computers.
> When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB? I
believe
> they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
> of 4.
> Thx,
> Kasper de Jonge
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

multiple instances + memory

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
switch instances on the computers.
When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I believe
they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
of 4.
Thx,
Kasper de Jonge
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Hi,
Yes, each instance are independent of each other. So you can define and fix
2 GB RAM for each instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Kasper de Jonge" <kdejonge.nospam@.elkerliek.nl> wrote in message
news:40b6f97f@.post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
> systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
> switch instances on the computers.
> When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I
believe
> they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
> of 4.
> Thx,
> Kasper de Jonge
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Multiple Instances

Iam planning to install multiple instances in active/active cluster.Will
there be ant problem if I use the same name for virtual server and the
instance name ?Any disadvantages?
Thanks
Ajuss
The virtual server name must be unique on the network and the instance
name must be unique on the cluster.
What you would normally get on a cluster with multiple SQL instances is
each instance having its own unique virtual server name and its own
unique instance name (only 1 instance on a cluster can be the default
instance but I'd recommend making them all named instances for
consistency and to avoid confusion). Like:
Instance 1: VSQL1\Inst1
Instance 2: VSQL2\Inst2
or
Instance 1: SQL20\Production
Instance 2: SQL21\Test
or something similar.
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Ajuss wrote:

>Iam planning to install multiple instances in active/active cluster.Will
>there be ant problem if I use the same name for virtual server and the
>instance name ?Any disadvantages?
>Thanks
>Ajuss
>

multiple instance cluster diagram

Does anyone have a good diagram? I have seen for single instance cluster at
microsoft site.
Thanks
Here is a link to fist one Google found today
http://www.databasejournal.com/img/M...ve_cluster.gif
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Uma" <Uma@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5B875AEC-2159-4F87-B189-E5A1A66D7257@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone have a good diagram? I have seen for single instance cluster
> at
> microsoft site.
> Thanks
|||Thank you Rodney. It is good.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> Here is a link to fist one Google found today
> http://www.databasejournal.com/img/M...ve_cluster.gif
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Uma" <Uma@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5B875AEC-2159-4F87-B189-E5A1A66D7257@.microsoft.com...
>
>