Re: Add new cluster and use existing LUN's?

The SAN is indeed capable. Creating a LUN out of the 225 GB of unformatted
data and assigning it to the new SQL server storage group is quick and easy.
The first 5 drives of our SAN share the system binaries, Snapview reserved
LUN's, and 3 additional LUN's all set as RAID 5 (making a total of 509 GB
divided between several different LUN's.) It is possible to share the same
drives with more than one server, however you can't share one LUN with more
than 1 server.

However we would have 1 virtual server accessing the original LUN of 175 GB
and the other virtual server accessing the newly created LUN of 225 GB--my
only hang up being the fact that the 2 LUN's exist on the same set of 4
drives and if you have 2 completely independent SQL servers accessing the
same drives is it going to put a hurt on performance. Again, t-logs stay
seperate (IE the 2 virtual servers would not be sharing the t-log drives,
they would each have their seperate set of RAID 10 drives) so that is my only
saving grace thinking this implementation may be possible.

I am here because I need a second opinion (and 3rd or 4ths if possible) from
some higher SQL guru's. I personally am the Net Admin so my SQL experience
is not broad however I understand the concept of the SAN well and know what I
am looking to do with the SQL servers.

Thanks!

"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> It depends on the SAN. You may not be allowed to share the drives with
> different servers.
>
> 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:A4415101-D95B-4871-A666-4D4A2497275F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I realize that testing is the ideal way to come to the complete conclusion
> >on
> > our pathway but my first and foremost question really is has anyone
> > successfully used a set of drives and have 2 luns for 2 different virtual
> > servers on that same set of drives?
> >
> > I'd like to know if I am doing something "average" or if the general
> > consensus is against such an idea. That helps me to determine how much of
> > a
> > possibility this really becomes and how much money I will be spending.
> >
> > Thanks for your input thusfar.
> >
> > "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... Keep in mind that I have seen OEM drivers up there so given that you've blown that image away, I can't say for certain that the 'critical' was 100% pushed by Microsoft. ... External USB is no replacement for local drives. ... LOL I show my naivety here when I say that I showed great diligence in my blind application of any MS suggested resolution to "Critical Errors" on my Small Business Server Monitor Report. ... When I got the first BSOD, I booted from the orginal CD and chose to only restore the System files. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... information to login to my server remotely to look around--hoping he could ... External USB is no replacement for local drives. ... stored on) and chose to only restore the System files. ... The "Cases" drive was actually a shared folder on an external ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... During the restore, the server rebooted without confirmation. ... The "Cases" drive was actually a shared folder on an external ... I mirrored the two drives ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... Before installing this server, my users were accustomed to storing all of ... The "Cases" drive was actually a shared folder on an external ... I mirrored the two drives ... Connection-specific DNS Suffix. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: After manually undoing a recent MS Update, my server is a mess
    ... Before installing this server, my users were accustomed to storing all of their files on what they call the "Cases" drive. ... Wrong...Windows XP didn't have the necessary drivers to mount the broken half-mirror dynamic drive and I was told that because the server was 64 bit, the 32 bit drivers probably wouldn't even help. ... Connection-specific DNS Suffix. ... I asked him how it could get 3/4 of the way through the boot process, obviously reading files from the drives, before BSOD and he suggested that perhaps a patch was incompatible with my hardware. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading