Re: Clustering with NAS

Basic Question...what is more important to you? Data or Price?

If you don't mind loosing data in a supposedly "high availability" scenario,
then do it the cheap way.
Is your network and switches as reliable as 99.999%? If not, when they fail,
and you end up with data corruption.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Pete Waters" <petewaters008@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the response. Whilst I appreciate that clustering with NAS is
> not supported by Microsoft, I'm interested to find out if people are
> actually doing it. If they are and it seems to be reliable enough then i'd
> imagine it would be worth the cost saving.
>
> thanks - pete.
>
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hi
>>
>> NAS is not fully supported. If you are going to build a cluster, make
>> sure that all the components are on the Windows Hardware Compatibility
>> List for Clustering. If not, don't expect support from Microsoft when
>> things go bad.
>>
>> Regards
>> --------------------------------
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> IM: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>>
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>>
>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell
>>> PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended
>>> but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be done
>>> would be helpful.
>>>
>>> thanks - pete.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages