| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server clustering : Clustering with NAS
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. [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > 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@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell >> PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended >> but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be done >> would be helpful. >> >> thanks - pete. >> > >
Hi Kevin,
I'm looking for an Active/Active cluster solution - not a passive failover one. thanks - pete. [quoted text, click to view] "Kevin3NF" <KHill@NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message news:eBgCxe9XFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Not being supported by Microsoft is a good enough reason for me to not try > it... > > There are cheaper failover options that are less hardware strict, such as > a product called double-take (www.nsisoftware.com no affiliation...) > > -- > Kevin Hill > President > 3NF Consulting > > www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm > > www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs. > > www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your > questions > > > "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> 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. >> > >
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@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > 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@epprecht.net> wrote in message > news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> 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@epprecht.net >> >> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >> >> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >> >> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> 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. >>> >> >> > >
The internal network and switches are certainly 99.999% reliable (or at
least have been over the last year!). I'm more interested in peoples practical experiences rather than the obvious value of data argument. I see that Microsoft are beginning to support iSCSI - any experience with that? thanks - pete. [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message news:uSShGp9XFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > 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@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> 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@epprecht.net> wrote in message >> news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> 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@epprecht.net >>> >>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>> >>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>> >>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Hi Mike,
Ah - that's not good! That's the kind of info i'm after - real world cases - thanks. Have you had any experience with using iSCSI in these setups? pete. [quoted text, click to view] "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message news:%23M0e0C%23XFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Well, I've been at 3 customers who used non-HCL equipment, 2 of them used > a NAS. Well, they all had one option, revert to yesterday's good backup. > One was an investment bank that lost about US$ 50 million due to the > failure. > > Regards > -------------------------------- > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Zurich, Switzerland > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:OjS0X39XFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> The internal network and switches are certainly 99.999% reliable (or at >> least have been over the last year!). I'm more interested in peoples >> practical experiences rather than the obvious value of data argument. I >> see that Microsoft are beginning to support iSCSI - any experience with >> that? >> >> thanks - pete. >> >> >> >> >> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message >> news:uSShGp9XFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>> 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@epprecht.net >>> >>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>> >>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>> >>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>> 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@epprecht.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>>> 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@epprecht.net >>>>> >>>>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>>>> >>>>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>>>> >>>>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell >>>>>> PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is >>>>>> recommended but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it >>>>>> shouldn't be done would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks - pete. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Hi
No. Not iSCSI. After the IT Directors got a good beating by the shareholders, they all went SAN. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OrxoIL%23XFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Hi Mike, > > Ah - that's not good! That's the kind of info i'm after - real world > cases - thanks. Have you had any experience with using iSCSI in these > setups? > > pete. > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message > news:%23M0e0C%23XFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Well, I've been at 3 customers who used non-HCL equipment, 2 of them used >> a NAS. Well, they all had one option, revert to yesterday's good backup. >> One was an investment bank that lost about US$ 50 million due to the >> failure. >> >> Regards >> -------------------------------- >> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> Zurich, Switzerland >> >> IM: mike@epprecht.net >> >> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >> >> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >> >> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:OjS0X39XFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> The internal network and switches are certainly 99.999% reliable (or at >>> least have been over the last year!). I'm more interested in peoples >>> practical experiences rather than the obvious value of data argument. I >>> see that Microsoft are beginning to support iSCSI - any experience with >>> that? >>> >>> thanks - pete. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message >>> news:uSShGp9XFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>>> 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@epprecht.net >>>> >>>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>>> >>>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>>> >>>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>>> 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@epprecht.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>>>> 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@epprecht.net >>>>>> >>>>>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>>>>> >>>>>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell >>>>>>> PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is >>>>>>> recommended but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it >>>>>>> shouldn't be done would be helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks - pete. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Well, I've been at 3 customers who used non-HCL equipment, 2 of them used a
NAS. Well, they all had one option, revert to yesterday's good backup. One was an investment bank that lost about US$ 50 million due to the failure. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OjS0X39XFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > The internal network and switches are certainly 99.999% reliable (or at > least have been over the last year!). I'm more interested in peoples > practical experiences rather than the obvious value of data argument. I > see that Microsoft are beginning to support iSCSI - any experience with > that? > > thanks - pete. > > > > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message > news:uSShGp9XFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >> 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@epprecht.net >> >> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >> >> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >> >> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:u6trGh9XFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>> 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@epprecht.net> wrote in message >>> news:OQXq%23c9XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>> 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@epprecht.net >>>> >>>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp >>>> >>>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ >>>> >>>> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>>> Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell >>>>> PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended >>>>> but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be >>>>> done would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> thanks - pete. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell PowerVault
745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended but costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be done would be helpful. thanks - pete.
Hi
NAS is not fully supported. If you are going to build a cluster, make sure that all the components are on the Windows Hardware Compatibility List for Clustering. If not, don't expect support from Microsoft when things go bad. Regards -------------------------------- Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP Zurich, Switzerland IM: mike@epprecht.net MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > 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. >
Not being supported by Microsoft is a good enough reason for me to not try
it... There are cheaper failover options that are less hardware strict, such as a product called double-take (www.nsisoftware.com no affiliation...) -- Kevin Hill President 3NF Consulting www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs. www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your questions [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell > PowerVault 745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended but > costs are vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be done would > be helpful. > > thanks - pete. >
I really fail to understand somebody who is investing in clustering
technology and then introduces a disk system which is not available at all? Why bother implementing clustering to begin with? Why not simply have separate machines on a SATA RAID in that case, cheap, fast, some level of redundancy GertD@SQLDev.Net Please reply only to the newsgroups. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. Copyright © SQLDev.Net 1991-2005 All rights reserved. [quoted text, click to view] "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uLSWvo9XFHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Hi Kevin, > > I'm looking for an Active/Active cluster solution - not a passive failover > one. > > thanks - pete. > > > > "Kevin3NF" <KHill@NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message > news:eBgCxe9XFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Not being supported by Microsoft is a good enough reason for me to not >> try it... >> >> There are cheaper failover options that are less hardware strict, such as >> a product called double-take (www.nsisoftware.com no affiliation...) >> >> -- >> Kevin Hill >> President >> 3NF Consulting >> >> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm >> >> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs. >> >> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your >> questions >> >> >> "Pete Waters" <petewaters008@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:e7$cBT9XFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> 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. >>> >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |