﻿<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>SQLServerCentral / SQL Server 2005 / SQL Server 2005 General Discussion  / Mount points vs. drive letters.... / Latest Posts</title><generator>InstantForum.NET v2.9.0</generator><description>SQLServerCentral</description><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/</link><webMaster>notifications@sqlservercentral.com</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 18:16:37 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title>RE: Mount points vs. drive letters....</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic318585-149-1.aspx</link><description>Funny you should mention a cluster with multiple instances.  That's something I've been tasked with investigating as part of a consolidation project, hence why it popped into my head.Good point re: naming the folder.Michael: No, it's something you do in the OS.  In Disk Mgmt, instead of assigning a drive letter to a drive, you can mount it to a folder on an existing drive.  So you see an extra folder on your C: drive, say, rather than seeing a D: drive.  Note: only works with NTFS.  Search for "mounting partitions" in Windows help.  Works in Win2K &amp; Win2K3.</description><pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:14:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>The CosmicTrickster</dc:creator></item><item><title>RE: Mount points vs. drive letters....</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic318585-149-1.aspx</link><description>&lt;P&gt;...Not that I expect that anyone would run out of drive letters...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- consider a cluster-node with a couple of instances topology driv1-data1 drive2-data2 drive3-log drive4-backup .... You'll run out of driveletters soon enough &lt;img src='images/emotions/crazy.gif' height='20' width='20' border='0' title='Crazy' align='absmiddle'&gt;&lt;img src='images/emotions/hehe.gif' height='20' width='20' border='0' title='HeHe' align='absmiddle'&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- I've mounted the backupvolume in a folder of the logdrive for some of our instances.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;   Just to keep a reminder, this mounted-directory is named MOUNTED_bu,    so it leaves a trace everywhere it is being used or may be used.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:53:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>ALZDBA</dc:creator></item><item><title>RE: Mount points vs. drive letters....</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic318585-149-1.aspx</link><description>&lt;P&gt;I would be curious to know how you do these mount points. Is something you do in SQL Server?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In any case, the last time I had to deal with a similar problem was when an ASP page executed a query and had to do a save of the ADO result set to a share which required a user and password to access. I never found a way to access this share without mapping it to a drive using WScript.Network's MapNetworkDrive method. But before doing so, the code would scan all existing mapped network drives to see if it's already mapped, etc. etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:22:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Michael Meierruth</dc:creator></item><item><title>Mount points vs. drive letters....</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic318585-149-1.aspx</link><description>What are peoples' opinions of mounting drives as folders (i.e. mount points) as opposed to assigning drive letters?  Anyone encounter any problems?Not that I expect that anyone would run out of drive letters, but just a thought that popped into my head.</description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:34:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>The CosmicTrickster</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>