 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / May 2005Clustering with NAS
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/ > 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, 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. > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> 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/ > Hi Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> >>> 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. > Basic Question...what is more important to you? Data or Price? > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>>> >>>> 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/ > 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 [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>>> >>>>> 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. > 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. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ > Hi Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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...)  SignatureKevin 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 > 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. > Not being supported by Microsoft is a good enough reason for me to not try > it... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> 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. SignatureThis 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. > Hi Kevin, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>> thanks - pete. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.