Hardware

is there a diffrence in the hardware needs of the machine if i setting up a
cluster?
If you are asking about performance or scalability, then its a little
bit complicated to give a good answer. Maybe you could provide more
information.
If you are asking about supportability, then it is best practices to by
a solution that is on the Windows Server Catalog list.
Go to Windows Server Catalog list home page
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/default-v1.aspx) ,
choose Hardware and them Cluster. There you can choose a hardware
solution from any vendor.
Ari wrote:
> is there a diffrence in the hardware needs of the machine if i setting up a
> cluster?
|||"Ari" <Ari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CADD529B-ABB0-4406-982E-D6A4AFAAF9BA@.microsoft.com...
> is there a diffrence in the hardware needs of the machine if i setting up
> a
> cluster?
Yes, there is, and it is a huge difference.
I recommend looking at the Windows Server Catalog for further information
regarding hardware.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
|||Yes and no. In an environment like ours, we use standard servers from tier 1
system vendors (such as DL585) and connect all servers to a centralized SAN,
there is virtually no difference in hardware whether or not the sever is
clustered.
If you are just walking into the wild world of server market and try to pick
some servers to cluster, your choices are more limited than they are when you
don't plan to cluster them. But I would argue that you should always
standardize on a limited selection of servers for all your server needs.
Should that be the case, I don't see why you want to make a separate list for
non-clustered servers, which serves no purpose but to complicate life.
Linchi
"Ari" wrote:

> is there a diffrence in the hardware needs of the machine if i setting up a
> cluster?
|||Ari,
with clustering you need to stick to the HCL (now called catalog)
see: http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/
Also, please read up on clusters, a very good collection of reference
material can be found here : http://www.nw-america.com
HTH,
Edwin.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41A810C5-9773-428E-892A-956F47D0B20D@.microsoft.com...
> Yes and no. In an environment like ours, we use standard servers from tier
1
> system vendors (such as DL585) and connect all servers to a centralized
SAN,
> there is virtually no difference in hardware whether or not the sever is
> clustered.
> If you are just walking into the wild world of server market and try to
pick
> some servers to cluster, your choices are more limited than they are when
you
> don't plan to cluster them. But I would argue that you should always
> standardize on a limited selection of servers for all your server needs.
> Should that be the case, I don't see why you want to make a separate list
for[vbcol=seagreen]
> non-clustered servers, which serves no purpose but to complicate life.
> Linchi
> "Ari" wrote:
up a[vbcol=seagreen]