Post reply

Mount Points

  • August 8, 2011 at 5:01 am

    #255467

    Hi,

    My company's directory structure for SQL standard stand alone installation as follows

    •C: System

    •D: Apps

    •F: Data

    •G: Logs

    •H: Tempdb

    •I: Backup

    But one windows guys is suggesting for Mount Point not only for Clusters for standalone as well he thinks it is is more structured and more flexible and expandable way without the risk of running out drive letter .

    •C: System

    •D: Apps/SQL Binaries

    •F: Mount

    •tempdb_Data_Mount

    •tempdb_Log_Mount

    •Data_Mount_01

    •Data_Mount_02

    •Logs_Mount_02

    • logs_Mount_02

    •Backup_Mount_01

    Is this a good design? I don't think for standalone this is required.

    Cluster with with too many instances will need mount point for sure as we might run out of drive letters.

    Any advice on this please?

    Thanks

  • August 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    #1365539

    I suspect much of what you will hear about this will be opinion.

    There was a time when mount points were considered bad practice, but if you talk to the Unix/Oracle guys, they will tell you they only use mount points.

    As you have said, mount points become a requirement when using multiple instances that would result in more than 26 drive letters being required, typically in clusters.

    I tend to agree that mount points do make it easier to manage disk space, and maybe a bit more flexable, but if your drives are on a SAN, it should still be easy to expand the disk space, One disadvantage is that the current sp_fixeddrives command doesn't return the capacity of mountpoints, so if you use SQL routines to monitor your disk space, you need to pull a few tricks.

    I can't see that there is any complelling reason to build stand alone servers with mount points, but at the same time, except for the above issue, there is no reason not to. I'd not spend any energy "fighting" it, but I'd insist that as the DBA I have a part in defining the naming convention. So I'd not just have F: Mount, but F: Mount_Default. So if a second instance were added it would be G:Mount_InstanceName, or something along these lines.

    My 2 cents worth

    Leo

    Leo
    Nothing in life is ever so complicated that with a little work it can't be made more complicated.

  • August 9, 2011 at 2:44 am

    #1365675

    Thanks a lot for the advice

  • August 9, 2011 at 7:21 am

    #1365885

    Given that you are only using 6 drive letters as it is I see no reason to move to mount points for your standalone servers.

    Best,
    Kevin G. Boles
    SQL Server Consultant
    SQL MVP 2007-2012
    TheSQLGuru on googles mail service

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

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