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

Standalone Servers, Mount Points and the SAN Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:59 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:02 AM
Points: 309, Visits: 158
I've got a standalone server where the data drive is nearing capacity. Space has been made available on the SAN. I'm using SQL Server 2005. I've got a couple of questions.....

1. Should I use mount points or drive letters on the SAN? I was reading on BOL about mount points as a consideration if you're in a clustered configuration. Because this is a standalone server, I'm thinking a drive letter is appropriate. Any other thoughts?
2. In the standalone configuration, we have a drive that's partitioned into a C and D drives. The C drive has the OS and the D drive holds the data. Should the SAN be setup like this where the OS is on a C (SAN drive) and the data on a D (SAN drive)?
3. Last one.....in the standalone configuration the database backups are saved to a backup folder on the D drive. Should that configuration continue when the data is moved to the SAN--with both databases and backups residing on the same SAN drive?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Post #609005
Posted Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:24 AM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:27 AM
Points: 175, Visits: 744
Hi,

1. Mountpoints are good if you are running out of drive letters so to speak. This is more likely on a cluster because SQL Server instances cannot share the same disk(s) in a cluster - in a non-clustered environment all your SQL Server instances can use the same disk(s).

2. You would still keep your OS on the local drive, wouldn't you? Otherwise you will have to boot from the SAN.

3. If disk space and performance is an issue on the local D drive; move the backups to the SAN as well (assuming the performance is better). However, because there is also a Disaster Recovery aspect, you might want to keep them on the local drive; your data is on the SAN and you don't want to put all your eggs in the same basket (if the SAN fails, your backups are still available if it is on the local drive).

HTH

/Elisabeth


elisabeth@sqlserverland.com
MCITP | MCT
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/elisabeth_redei/
http://linkedin.com/in/elisabethredei
Post #609063
Posted Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:49 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:35 AM
Points: 33,102, Visits: 15,213
I like Elizabeth's advice, especially about backups. I might put them on the SAN IF I was sure they were on physically separate disks, but you want to make sure if the data is lost, the backups are still around.

SANs failing, it can happen, but you might not be able to get enough hardware in place to rebuild a server anyway without getting the SAN working. Hasn't been a big concern and many people don't buy one SAN, they buy two.

I would still make sure my backup files were being pulled to tape or another server as well.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #609188
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse