AG Groups Vs Shared Storage

  • Hello,

    Im pretty new to SQL and im currently on a steep learning curve in my new job role. Im going through setting up an Availability Group (AG) with the need for shared storage, i have this working in conjunction with WSFC on Server 2012.

    My question is, the AG asks for a shared network location that the nodes can both see, now correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this essentially the same as using shared storage on a SAN? We currently use SQL 2008 on a NetApp SAN for shared storage using full blown Server 2008 clustering for fail-over.

    It occurred to me while writing documentation that its basically the same thing as shared storage so why would you want to use AG over shared storage? I realize it has the benefits of offloading reporting to secondary replicas but i assume these same functions can be used with SAN storage. Also would you use a local shared folder (local to the node) or a share on a separate server all together that isn't part of the cluster?

    Apologies if i'm not making sense, its my first time and want to get it right in my head before i present it to my colleagues.

    Cheers

  • Anyone?

  • Hi,

    You might be confused with what AG shared network location means, it only meant the network share, not a share storage as to what used in clusters.

    In AG, you do not need a share storage in SAN, where cluster do. As to the benefit, since cluster you cannot open up the failover partner for read so you cannot really offload your reporting.

    Hope this helps.

    Rgds,

  • Shared storage is not required for Availability Groups, and nor should any dependency of your replicas be shared.

    I believe this network location is just requested by the wizard to do the initial backup/restore for the secondaries.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply