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

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: 2003 Cluster woes
    ... suppose to go in deisk manager and initialize the drives... ... Like I mentioned 2 of the 3 had the minus sign on the drives. ... I am wondering if that is why when we fail over that one the whole cluster ... it definitely matters if you are attempting to cluster AD servers. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • more problems with clustering
    ... In a previous message I wrote: but when windows 2003 sp1 came out, ... this it killed all three nodes and now i cant reconnect to cluster. ... We have three servers we want to cluster. ... and continuelly get internal errors when trying to initialize the drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Windows 2003 Network Load Balancing Problem
    ... Sadly my servers websites were configured with specific IPs and host ... I find it very strange why the NLB driver can receive on a virtual IP ... he set his IIS website to use ALL UNASSIGNED addresses rather than ... specifically pointing it at the single virtual cluster address. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: upgrading sql2k cluster to sql2005
    ... that databases get locked off in the current cluster and then properly ... I maintain many SQL servers as ... Who is going to track down all of the applications that need to have ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Load Balanced TS Servers and Unicast Flooding
    ... Remove each on of your tse servers from the cluster, ... Start adding them back to the NLB Cluster. ... > NICs. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
Loading