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

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: Adding 3 nodes to a cluster
    ... So you need to add the nodes to the cluster using the Cluster tool. ... Then extend the existing instance to the new nodes using the installer. ... Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant ... servers acting as a failover in case one of the servers fails. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Adding 3 nodes to a cluster
    ... First you use the cluster admin tool to add the machines as nodes to the cluster. ... Then you run the SQL installer to install binaries on the newly added nodes and allow the new nodes to host the existing instances. ... >>>I need to add these new servers as seperate instances in the SQL ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • WIN2K3 SP1, SQL Server / MSDTC Issue
    ... I can get SQL Installed ok and everything works fine until I set ... Setup Network Connections (for internal cluster comms and public network) ... Reboot Servers ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: New SQL 2005 Cluster Questions
    ... You have only one SQL instance in the cluster. ... So, from what I am seeing is I have no choice but to DC the servers, cluster ... Win2003 Ent and then install SQL 2005 Ent onto this cluster. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Adding 3 nodes to a cluster
    ... I need to add these new servers as seperate instances in the SQL cluster. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
Loading