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 Points Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:06 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:46 PM
Points: 2, Visits: 35
Simply put: Is anyone using mount points in their SQL2K5 implementations? If so...what's been your experience on ease of use, performance, problems, maintainability? Thanks!
Post #475826
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 3:58 AM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:27 AM
Points: 77, Visits: 488
Hi Brad

I have been using mountpoints on HPBL45 servers with no problems. Mount points againt HPXP1024SAN and EVA8000 Series. Clustered solutions only.

We have mainly used this for sharepoint db's to expand diskspace without using any more driveletters.

I have also used it during migrations to host bcp data.



Post #475945
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 7:47 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:46 PM
Points: 2, Visits: 35
Thanks for the reply. Performance and ease of use are two of the criteria we're attempting to evaluate so your experience is very timely.

We're engaged in a consolidation project for several clients and are considering using mount points to increase the number of instances being hosted on a server/cluster (to mitigate the problem of not having enough drive letters for the physical volumes involved) and, where the customer wants to host databases for multiple applications onto one instance, isolate storage usage so that any one set of application databases does not cause problems for other application databases when unexpected storage usage event (e.g. from an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE query using up all of the transaction log space) occurs. Using mount points would also give us the flexibility to add space easily.

Brad
Post #476100
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 9:00 AM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:27 AM
Points: 77, Visits: 488
The SAN guys told me that for disk performance the read/write I/O for SQL and Exchange where quite similar in patterns. But Fileshares where not so they tended to isolate Fileshares on own LUN's(DiskZones) and didn't use Mount points for those. Somehow they had experienced that performance-wise the mountpoints didn't deliver. In Exchange and SQL group we couldn't tell if dedicated disk with driveletter or mounthpoint - we used this scenario for sharepoint databases and when users are using browser expectations of performance drops quite significantly. I guess it's more dependandt on SAN design than on Windows/SQL performance.

I don't have any problems with translog growth. I normally tune the size of the translog the first month a new db comes into an instance. Monitor log backup size on the database and then adds about 40% for growth on the log file and set it to fixed. Only challenge I have is tempdb and unexpected behaviour when adding new db's.

-R




Post #476180
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse