Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

Mount Point quick question Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:31 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:36 AM
Points: 384, Visits: 1,269
Hi,

I am working on the design of a MS-SQL 2012 failover cluster, running on top of Windows 2008. I am assuming mount point's behavior is similar between Denali and SQL 2008, as I will be using Windows 2008 anyway, but wanted to validate.

Here's the suggested disk layout:

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Data
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Logs
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Backups

Each will be on a different LUN ... where the 1st one, will be for the binaries, next one Data, next one Logs, etc.

Do I have to create to specify a subdirectory under any of those, to avoid Cluster or permissions issues? For instance, when running the MS-SQL setup, do I have to create a sub-directory like this?

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Binaries

Or just specify this path: D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL ??? ... so binaries will go there and setup will continue???

A similar question I think applies for Data, Log and backups ...

Also, this will be a two node Cluster only, with the possibility of one more SQL fail-over instance, using existing two nodes or servers. Should I really worry about Mount Points or go for a more simple approach, with drive letters?

Thanks in advance,
Post #1384190
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:42 PM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:26 PM
Points: 316, Visits: 1,497
Personally, I'd go for multiple drive letters if you expect only two instances.

I'll throw this out for public ridicule:

1 drive for the sql install (system dbs, sql errorlogs, etc)
1 drive for user db mdf files
1 drive for user db log files

Optionally:
1 drive for tempdb
1 drive for backups

What is more important than the number of drives is the way they are configured.

for example, do you need raid 10 for logs? With enough write caching on the SAN, no!

it is nice from a manageability standpoint to have user db's seperated for moving between clusters, but don't over think it.
Post #1384391
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:45 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:51 AM
Points: 6,350, Visits: 13,674
sql-lover (11/13/2012)
Hi,

I am working on the design of a MS-SQL 2012 failover cluster, running on top of Windows 2008. I am assuming mount point's behavior is similar between Denali and SQL 2008, as I will be using Windows 2008 anyway, but wanted to validate.

Here's the suggested disk layout:

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Data
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Logs
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Backups

Each will be on a different LUN ... where the 1st one, will be for the binaries, next one Data, next one Logs, etc.

Do I have to create to specify a subdirectory under any of those, to avoid Cluster or permissions issues? For instance, when running the MS-SQL setup, do I have to create a sub-directory like this?

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Binaries

Or just specify this path: D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL ??? ... so binaries will go there and setup will continue???

A similar question I think applies for Data, Log and backups ...

Also, this will be a two node Cluster only, with the possibility of one more SQL fail-over instance, using existing two nodes or servers. Should I really worry about Mount Points or go for a more simple approach, with drive letters?

Thanks in advance,

It seems to me that you are confusing mount points. Read my article at this link for more info on mount points.

Taking your scenario above you would first have a root drive, about 100MB in size or even smaller if possible. The root drive would be assigned a drive letter D:
Under this drive you create the folder structure below

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL

Under the MSSQL folder you create any folders that will be used to mount the NTFS volumes. Folders created would be

D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Data
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Logs
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Backups
D:\MSSQL\MSSQL10_50.I01\MSSQL\Binaries

The 4 new volumes are then mounted under these folders. Once the volumes are mounted you must create a subfolder under each to facilitate the granting of NTFS permissions. It's all in my article linked above, post back if you're still stuck after reading that.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
Post #1384514
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:35 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:36 AM
Points: 384, Visits: 1,269
Thanks Perry,

I'll take a look today ...but regardless , with a max of two failover instances on a two node clusters , would you recommend mount points? Besides gaining more flexibility and freedom regards drive letter choice, what else would I potentially miss if I go the drive letter route?
Post #1384569
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:16 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:51 AM
Points: 6,350, Visits: 13,674
sql-lover (11/14/2012)
Thanks Perry,

I'll take a look today

It will help you understand better

sql-lover (11/14/2012)
but regardless , with a max of two failover instances on a two node clusters , would you recommend mount points? Besides gaining more flexibility and freedom regards drive letter choice, what else would I potentially miss if I go the drive letter route?

Yes i would. Commonly you would use mount points to get round the drive limitations of the OS, but i think that mount points help to keep everything nicely ordered whilst still making use of multiple disks for good performance.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
Post #1384584
Posted Wednesday, December 5, 2012 8:51 PM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:36 AM
Points: 384, Visits: 1,269
Perry Whittle (11/14/2012)
Yes i would. Commonly you would use mount points to get round the drive limitations of the OS, but i think that mount points help to keep everything nicely ordered whilst still making use of multiple disks for good performance.


I ended deploying the new Cluster at work using mount points.

Our SAN expert was shocked and amazed of how powerful and simple the mount point is. He actually is planing on using it for future clients, different than us.

To my surprise, he said had never seen it before.
Post #1393309
Posted Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:48 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:51 AM
Points: 6,350, Visits: 13,674
Mount points are a standard feature of the NTFS file system and have been for some time. Mounted volumes are very common on Unix systems too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
Post #1393333
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse