Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?
- From: "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:25:49 -0500
You need to stress test, look at the results, and then test some more.
Testing will tell you what the correct answer is for your environment.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"skyline" <skyline@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:18DB25CC-37FC-4FEF-AF56-64696BE9D0B8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi All,
>
> We have a Win2003 Enterprise/SQL 2000 "active/passive" cluster, and we
> want
> to split a few larger DB's off to a seperate and new "active/passive"
> cluster. The reason for the split is to allow this new cluster to control
> the one application and the other cluster to control the existing app.
> Currently we have:
>
> SQL LUN occupying 4 Raid 10 disks with 175 GB assigned to this LUN. Doing
> the math leaves us with appx. 225 GB left on these 4 discs that is
> unnassigned and unformatted.
>
> T-log/Quorum LUN occupying 2 Raid 10 disks with all of the space assigned
> to
> this LUN (appx 134 GB).
>
> We are most likely not going to utilize the entire 175 GB for the data
> collection side let alone the additional 225 GB. At what impact to the
> disk
> I/O are we going to suffer if we create the new a/p cluster using a newly
> assigned LUN that occupies the previously unformatted 225 GB on the SQL
> data
> disks? So essentially we would have 2 seperate virtual servers operating
> off
> of the same spindles, however 2 different LUN's. My gut feeling says that
> we
> would take some type of I/O performance hit since 2 seperate high I/O
> applications are accessing the same spindles. We would however have 2 new
> RAID 10 disks for the t-logs and quorum of the new cluster and since they
> are
> the highest I/O portion of SQL and would not be sharing this is the only
> reason I think the idea may be feasible.
>
> The reasons for trying to use the unformatted space on those 4 spindles
> is:
>
> A) The data collection app already running on those spindles in the 175
> GB
> space is never going to use all of that space (it is using 50 GB currently
> and at least half of that is the other app we want to split off). So a
> future of adding the 225 GB as a metalun to the existing SQL LUN is slim
> to
> nill.
>
> B) We are hosed on that 225 GB of space for eternity really. If we can't
> use it for another SQL cluster I don't think there is anyway we would use
> it
> for file storage for example. That is based on my opinion...I have a hard
> time believing it is okay to add another set of SQL data let alone file
> data.
>
> C) We only have 3 slots left in the first SAN cabinet. We will be using 2
> of those for a RAID 10 t-log setup for the new SQL cluster so that leaves
> us
> with 1 drive space open for the new SQL cluster data which=impossible. So
> now we not only have to buy additional drives but also a new cabinet and
> all
> associated hardware.
>
> Keep in mind our main goal here is the processing power. Our existing
> cluster's processor is by no means outdated, but the data collection AND
> reporting runs at the same time are causing slow downs due to processing
> requests from many different applications. If reporting were on it's own
> cluster that means it has its own server to beat up on and our clients
> don't
> notice delays in web surveys or IVR calls when the daily reports are being
> aggregated.
>
> Any help provided is greatly appreciated.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?
- From: skyline
- Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?
- Prev by Date: Re: single node cluster?
- Next by Date: Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?
- Previous by thread: Re: Migrate existing standalone to cluster
- Next by thread: Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
