I am reasonably good at dealing with SQL Server clusters; I am wondering if folks have experience, good or bad, using a mix of different models of servers from the same vendor in one SQL 2005 cluster.

Suppose:

1. I have one more powerful, more RAM, more shizzle box and one less powerful, less memory, less shizzle box bound together in a 2-node cluster. These would be HP DL380 and 580 machines (not that it should matter)

2. I understand AND automate the process of managing memory for each SQL instance, so there's no memory contention when SQL instances fail over. Basically I am thinking a CLR proc will monitor the instances and self-regulate memory caps on each instance, so that they won't page or step on one another.

3. I get the fact the instances might be slower and or under memory pressure if they share a "lesser" node, and that's OK. The business can deal with a slower instance in a server-problem scenario.

Reasonable? Any "gotchas" to watch out for?

More info 10/28: doing some experiments with a test cluster I find that reconfiguring max/min memory is OK PROVIDED the instance isn't already under memory pressure. If I torture the system with a huge query that demands a big chunk of RAM, and simultaneously adjust the memory allocation to a smaller value than what is being actively used, it's possible to run the instance out of memory and have it halt and restart itself (unhappy situation). Many ugly out-of-memory messages in the error log, crashing, burning... It's an extreme case, but good to know.

Seems, then, that it would only be really safe to set this on startup of the instance, as in have a startup script that says "I am on node1, so my RAM settings are X or I am on node two, so they are Y," like this:

http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand...

Update: I am testing a SQL Agent + PowerShell solution described in more detail here.