Changing Hostname of a JobServer in the Designer

I have a scenario where I have two job servers (one active and one is passive state), both are configured with similar machine roles, both are in different data centers.

Currently I want to failover my primary job server to the passive one by changing FQDN of the server from the desinger (Changing parameters Full Server Name and Executing server).

I have below questions in my mind regarding my approach:

  1. Is this technically the righ approach to failover jobserver with minimum number of steps?
  2. Provided I have already pending job queues on active job server, will those jobs be switched to passive one or not?
  3. How SQL processing server will communicate to my passive server? as earlier both my active job server and other job server which has role of SQL processing server were in the same data center and there was no communication barier whatsoever.

Best regards,

Daniel

Parents
  • Hello,

    Is the fail-over being done for a specific reason or are you testing a scenario where this would be necessary?

    Without actually running through this scenario myself, I think the first thing you'll see are errors in the log file for the primary as the name will now be different.

    Any pending jobs for the primary job server will thus fail.

    The current configuration you described sounds problematic as you have two job servers with similar roles.  How are you directing jobs now?

    Rather than renaming the primary job server you could simply remove any roles you don't want it to respond for.  That way any new requests will go to the passive, which does have the required roles.

    And as always, be sure to test this thoroughly in a dev or test environment.

    Trevor

Reply
  • Hello,

    Is the fail-over being done for a specific reason or are you testing a scenario where this would be necessary?

    Without actually running through this scenario myself, I think the first thing you'll see are errors in the log file for the primary as the name will now be different.

    Any pending jobs for the primary job server will thus fail.

    The current configuration you described sounds problematic as you have two job servers with similar roles.  How are you directing jobs now?

    Rather than renaming the primary job server you could simply remove any roles you don't want it to respond for.  That way any new requests will go to the passive, which does have the required roles.

    And as always, be sure to test this thoroughly in a dev or test environment.

    Trevor

Children
No Data