SAN question

Hi,
are there any special considerations from the database point of view if one is working on a SAN. I wouldn't expect so but thought I'd ask as I'll be in this situation soon.
TIA,
Fred
Once installed and configured SAN should be pretty much transparent to SQL.
Getting the optimum configuration (assignment of logical volumes to physical
devices; RAID levels; placement of data and log; etc) is the most important
consideration. Unfortunately there aren't many general rules for SANs
because every manufacturer's system is different. Talk to the vendor and
listen to their recommendations for running SQLServer on their hardware.
Then test out their suggestions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

SAN question

Hi,
are there any special considerations from the database point of view if one
is working on a SAN. I wouldn't expect so but thought I'd ask as I'll be in
this situation soon.
TIA,
FredOnce installed and configured SAN should be pretty much transparent to SQL.
Getting the optimum configuration (assignment of logical volumes to physical
devices; RAID levels; placement of data and log; etc) is the most important
consideration. Unfortunately there aren't many general rules for SANs
because every manufacturer's system is different. Talk to the vendor and
listen to their recommendations for running SQLServer on their hardware.
Then test out their suggestions.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

SAN question

Hi
are there any special considerations from the database point of view if one is working on a SAN. I wouldn't expect so but thought I'd ask as I'll be in this situation soon
TIA
FredOnce installed and configured SAN should be pretty much transparent to SQL.
Getting the optimum configuration (assignment of logical volumes to physical
devices; RAID levels; placement of data and log; etc) is the most important
consideration. Unfortunately there aren't many general rules for SANs
because every manufacturer's system is different. Talk to the vendor and
listen to their recommendations for running SQLServer on their hardware.
Then test out their suggestions.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

SAN Performance

I have a situation where a client is experiencing performance issues with our application which heavily relies on SQL. We have a very large table that has heavy fragmentation, so to ensure this is rectified first before exploring other performance related issues we have decided to rebuild the index. We have had to allocate additional storage to attempt this by adding 3 LUNs (500gb each) + 3 additional SQL data files.When running the rebuild I monitored the I\O and noticed the throughput was very poor.The clustered index in question was sitting on 2 files and when rebuilding the index you can see the 3 new data files being populated (These files have been pre sized).On all three files I am only getting 1-3 I\O per second and under 1mb\sec throughput.When comparing this on a fixed disk system I can see I\O’s are far greater.When using SQLIO against each LUN on the SAN the performance is very respectable.Has anyone had any similar issues with performance and SANs.I did notice the driver for the HBA on this system was relatively old and a newer one is available, would anyone think upgrading this may address the issue?Any ideas would be much appreciated.This definitely appears to be a storage issue.

When you do SQLIO tests are you testing all LUN's at the same time and using a file size that makes the total size of test files larger than the cache available to you from the SAN?

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||I have tested each LUN individually and yes the test files are larger than the cache.|||

I would try to test all LUN's at the same time since this might give a different result.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

SAN Performance

I have a situation where a client is experiencing performance issues with our application which heavily relies on SQL. We have a very large table that has heavy fragmentation, so to ensure this is rectified first before exploring other performance related issues we have decided to rebuild the index. We have had to allocate additional storage to attempt this by adding 3 LUNs (500gb each) + 3 additional SQL data files.When running the rebuild I monitored the I\O and noticed the throughput was very poor.The clustered index in question was sitting on 2 files and when rebuilding the index you can see the 3 new data files being populated (These files have been pre sized).On all three files I am only getting 1-3 I\O per second and under 1mb\sec throughput.When comparing this on a fixed disk system I can see I\O’s are far greater.When using SQLIO against each LUN on the SAN the performance is very respectable.Has anyone had any similar issues with performance and SANs.I did notice the driver for the HBA on this system was relatively old and a newer one is available, would anyone think upgrading this may address the issue?Any ideas would be much appreciated.This definitely appears to be a storage issue.

When you do SQLIO tests are you testing all LUN's at the same time and using a file size that makes the total size of test files larger than the cache available to you from the SAN?

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||I have tested each LUN individually and yes the test files are larger than the cache.|||

I would try to test all LUN's at the same time since this might give a different result.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

SAN Performance

I have a situation where a client is experiencing performance issues with our application which heavily relies on SQL. We have a very large table that has heavy fragmentation, so to ensure this is rectified first before exploring other performance related issues we have decided to rebuild the index. We have had to allocate additional storage to attempt this by adding 3 LUNs (500gb each) + 3 additional SQL data files.When running the rebuild I monitored the I\O and noticed the throughput was very poor.The clustered index in question was sitting on 2 files and when rebuilding the index you can see the 3 new data files being populated (These files have been pre sized).On all three files I am only getting 1-3 I\O per second and under 1mb\sec throughput.When comparing this on a fixed disk system I can see I\O’s are far greater.When using SQLIO against each LUN on the SAN the performance is very respectable.Has anyone had any similar issues with performance and SANs.I did notice the driver for the HBA on this system was relatively old and a newer one is available, would anyone think upgrading this may address the issue?Any ideas would be much appreciated.This definitely appears to be a storage issue.

When you do SQLIO tests are you testing all LUN's at the same time and using a file size that makes the total size of test files larger than the cache available to you from the SAN?

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||I have tested each LUN individually and yes the test files are larger than the cache.|||

I would try to test all LUN's at the same time since this might give a different result.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

SAN Performance

How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does use
write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would some
with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?The host bus adapters that connect your servers to the SAN will typically
have a hefty cache on them, just like in a DAS environment.
mb
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:
> How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does use
> write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would some
> with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?|||Controllers in a SAN do usually implement write-cacheing. Normally a SAN
requires a UPS backup so that writes can be guaranteed in the event of a
power failure.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

SAN Performance

How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does use
write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would som
e
with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?The host bus adapters that connect your servers to the SAN will typically
have a hefty cache on them, just like in a DAS environment.
mb
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does us
e
> write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would s
ome
> with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?|||Controllers in a SAN do usually implement write-cacheing. Normally a SAN
requires a UPS backup so that writes can be guaranteed in the event of a
power failure.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

SAN Performance

How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does use
write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would some
with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?
The host bus adapters that connect your servers to the SAN will typically
have a hefty cache on them, just like in a DAS environment.
mb
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> How does SAN get its performance without using write cache? If it does use
> write chace, how is it safer than suing a cacheing controller that would some
> with a RAID subsustem such as a Dell Powervault?
|||Controllers in a SAN do usually implement write-cacheing. Normally a SAN
requires a UPS backup so that writes can be guaranteed in the event of a
power failure.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

San Performace with SQl Server

hi everyone,
Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
Read
requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
Suggest
We Have Raid 10 On our San with 4D+4D Raid Group sets ,In this Situtation
what is the best Setting For the Read Cache for our Hba Emulex(2GB)
Thanks&Regards
Saradhi
Hi
Have you tried formatting the drives at OS level with cluster sizes of 64kb?
We found it made a big difference on IO performance.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC2A304B-BD87-4FB4-8B70-9A659753ABF9@.microsoft.com...
> hi everyone,
> Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
>
> And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
> with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
> MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
> Read
> requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
> enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
> sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
> wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
> should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
> them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
> turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
> to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
> design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
> Suggest
> We Have Raid 10 On our San with 4D+4D Raid Group sets ,In this Situtation
> what is the best Setting For the Read Cache for our Hba Emulex(2GB)
>
> Thanks&Regards
> --
> Saradhi
|||i am not aware how to do it,can u provide me any link on it pls
Thanks®ards
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Have you tried formatting the drives at OS level with cluster sizes of 64kb?
> We found it made a big difference on IO performance.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BC2A304B-BD87-4FB4-8B70-9A659753ABF9@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Windows format.
From the command line
format <drive> /A:64K
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i am not aware how to do it,can u provide me any link on it pls
> Thanks®ards
> Saradhi
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||If we format The Default cluster size to 64 kb at the Os Level ,will it not
need to
Defragmentation of the Disk ,and should we go for a regular defrag of the
Dirve chaning it ,if we increase the Read cache will we get any performance
boost out of it , and make the cache to 50- 50 read and write
Thanks,
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Windows format.
> From the command line
> format <drive> /A:64K
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||hi mike ,
i have asked my admin about this of formatting our drive with 64 k as us
said, he says we have set element size of 128 k in the cluster and we need
not formst the disk again in that situation is it true ,can u pls clarify my
doubt
Thanks®ards
Saradhi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Windows format.
> From the command line
> format <drive> /A:64K
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1EE3130-876C-4BB7-8642-BB4E949361D2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You should format the drive using 64 KB allocation units. Yes, the SAN
element size, which is just the equivalent of the RAID stripe size, is 128
KB by default, but for a different purpose. The reason you want 64 KB AUs
at the Logical OS level is because it reduces the number of IOPS to get the
same amount of data plus SQL Server will execute asynchronous disk requests
by Extents, which are 8 x 8 KB data pages = 64 KB. It can also request up
to 2 Extents whenever it is attempting to execute Read-Ahead requests, which
is 128 KB, and would be 1 request but 2 IOPS if formatted as 64 KB AUs
versus 32 IOPS is formatted with the default 4 KB AUs. If the turnaround
time is about 10 to 20 milliseconds per IO request, a 16 fold increase in
transmission could be quite a windfall for performance.
However, and this has been debated, you may wish to format the separate
transaction log disks as 8 KB AUs as the transaction log is a serial process
that is not tied to Extents nor Read-Ahead operations. In this case,
aligning with the data page size would be preferable.
That being said, even though we have separated our Data files from TLog
file, and TempDB data from User DB data, we do dedicate and format SQL
Server database file drives all with 64 KB AUs and have increased our IO
throughput.
If you need to support a high levels of Read IOPS, buy more, smaller disks
for the SAN, increasing the spindle count. If you need to support high
levels of Write IOPS, then by more HBAs and a Multipath solution for your
server. EMC makes PowerPath; Veritas has Volume Manager. And there are
many other products on the market which will do the same task.
Finally, along with properly formatting your disks, you also need to
consider properly aligning your NTFS volumes with the SAN track sectors.
This can be done either on the SAN or on the OS. On the SAN, it is called a
LUN Offset. On the Win2K OS, you can use the Resource Kit DISKPAR tool to
"sector" align the partition before you format it. For Win2K3, if you are
pre-SP1, use the DISKPAR utility; if post-SP1, use the OS DISKPART tool.
The difference is that DISKPAR will ask you for the number of sectors to
offset for alignment, DISKPART will ask you for the number of bytes. What
you want is 64 sectors = 32,768 bytes.
Here's the reason, for many modern disks, tracks contain more than 63
sectors/track, but NTFS was created when they were just 63 sectors/track,
and reserves the first track as the MBR header; so, it is unusable by the
OS. When you partition, you will end up starting at sector number 64,
assuming each track only contains 63 sectors. However, consider what
happens if you really have 64 or more sectors/track. If you request 4 KB
chunks, you will request the first seven just fine, but on the eighth, you
will ask for 4 KB, but there will only be 3,584 bytes left on the track; so,
to fulfill your request for 4,096 bytes, the first 3,584 bytes will be read
from the current track, but the final 512 bytes (one sector) will be read
from the adjoining track. That means you will have to incur the additional
latency of the seek time to move the disk actuator from one track to the
next, the slowest operation of any but the latest disks. If you use 64 KB
AUs, you will incur this additional latency with each and every IO
operation.
Now, the proper alignment depends on the number of sectors/track the
particular disks used in your SAN; so, get this information from your
Storage team. However, it is typical that you will set this offset to 64
sectors (32,768 bytes) instead of the default 63 sectors.
Studies have shown improvements of 10% to 20% simply by properly configuring
your partitions. Granted, this will probably be easier to manage with the
LUN offsets from within the SAN, but I would at least ask if you need to
perform this operation or not.
Although different, there are similarities between Exchange and SQL Server;
so, sometimes KBs related to Exchange are pertinent for SQL Server as well.
This is the case here: disk IO is a sub-system issue, relevant to both
system software. The following TechNet article is worth taking a look at.
How to Align Exchange I/O with Storage Track Boundaries
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...8e98806e7.mspx
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Saradhi" <Saradhi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B08F4FEA-438E-4B75-81EF-001F1D3B7752@.microsoft.com...
> hi mike ,
> i have asked my admin about this of formatting our drive with 64 k as us
> said, he says we have set element size of 128 k in the cluster and we need
> not formst the disk again in that situation is it true ,can u pls clarify
my[vbcol=seagreen]
> doubt
> Thanks®ards
> Saradhi
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
of[vbcol=seagreen]
Emc[vbcol=seagreen]
Random[vbcol=seagreen]
iam[vbcol=seagreen]
we[vbcol=seagreen]
among[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
design[vbcol=seagreen]
Emulex(2GB)[vbcol=seagreen]

San Performace settings SQl Server

hi everyone,
Am presenlty Testing the I/o performance on the new CX-500 San From Emc
And Hba From Emulex,The LUn Size is 1 TB and when doing the Testing
with SQlIO Tool with a I/o block size-8 i get 39.3
MB/sec for Random write requestes but when doing the same with Random
Read
requests i get 6.04 MB/sec as the output,the read/Write cache is
enabled with read cache set to 288 and write to 1198,We have a
sqlserver Oltp Enviroment with mostlty Read Intensive Operations , iam
wonering how can i increase the Read i/o ,The Lun design looks bad we
should have made smaller Luns and Shared the Data and Log Files among
them ,will i get any performance if i set read cache to low value or
turn off the read cache or should i recomend to rebuild the san design
to smaller chunks , i am not so well versed in san
design , what i want is best perfromance for my sql serverr IO ,Pls
Suggest
Thanks,
SaradhiI will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across mutilpe LUN's as opposed ot a single alrge LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until yo ustrike a happy
medium.
ALI|||It will be beneficial if you spread the Data, T-Log and TempDB files
across multiple LUN's as opposed to a single large LUN and additionally
invest in a 2nd HBA so you have multiple channels to the SAN.
If you have tools to identify hot spindles then so much the better as
you can then try distributing the high-usage elements.
If your environment is Read-intensive then logic would dictate biasing
the cache towards Read operations as opposed to Write, you might be
better making small adjustments and re-testing until you strike a happy
medium.
ALI|||u had any performance increase by increasing the Read cache,Any Reads
Done will be checked In the sql Buffer cache else will go for a disk
read and ihave set the max server Memory to 12 gb out of 16, Does Read
cache in the
helps us in improving the Read I/o operations as i have read in some of
the postings in here not to go for Read cache but to turn off the read
cache and read ahead and use all for write cache ,As u suggesst should
i check the Io By
increasing the Read cache and check the stats
Thanks&Regards
saradhi

SAN issues, please help

We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
backups to it each night. This restore process used to
take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
(spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
this for me? Thanks,
Van JonesUnless your SAN people totally botched the configuration of the device, my
guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you running on fiber or
ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches, firewalls, etc?
--
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones|||Here's what our network admin says...
The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.
>--Original Message--
>Unless your SAN people totally botched the configuration
of the device, my
>guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you
running on fiber or
>ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches,
firewalls, etc?
>--
>Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
>See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
>"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
>> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between
the
>> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
>> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
>> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the
onld
>> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the
SAN
>> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
>> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
>> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
>> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it
runs
>> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
>> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
>> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
>> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
>> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it,
but
>> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
>> this for me? Thanks,
>> Van Jones
>
>.
>|||Well, who configured your SAN? Did they configure it for SQL Server? It is
not as simple as, "just get a SAN, and SQL Server will be faster." It has
to be configured correctly, both on the SAN side and the OS/SQL Server side,
in order to make it worth the investment...
Have a look at the thread "Running SQL database off of SAN -- is it feasible
?" in this group, started on 3/14. There should be plenty of reading there
for you, with some pointers to finding the smoking gun(s) causing your
performance issues.
--
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19d001c5314d$163f57e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Here's what our network admin says...
> The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
> data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
> connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Unless your SAN people totally botched the configuration
> of the device, my
> >guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you
> running on fiber or
> >ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches,
> firewalls, etc?
> >
> >--
> >Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> >See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> in message
> >news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> >> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between
> the
> >> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> >> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> >> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the
> onld
> >> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the
> SAN
> >> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> >> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> >> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> >> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it
> runs
> >> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> >> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> >> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> >> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> >> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it,
> but
> >> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> >> this for me? Thanks,
> >>
> >> Van Jones
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't have
much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for your
intended workload.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones|||Van -
Do you know how the drive sets were configured (e.g. RAID level, etc) ?
This can effect performance.
Where are you restoring from ? tape or disk backup ? If tape, channel
speed and cache could be a problem.
Where is this backup located, on the SAN, if so what drive set ?
Reading and Writing to/from the same physical drive could be a problem?
"SANs are great but require a lot of up front care and feeding to deliver on
promises"
"Van Jones" wrote:
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones
>|||I missed that detail. There is definitely some truth in the statement, "not
all SANs are created equal." Configuration is just as important. Quality
of the drives themselves can be a large factor as well.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O4VqdJVMFHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
> loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't
have
> much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
> SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
> storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for
your
> intended workload.

SAN issues, please help

We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
backups to it each night. This restore process used to
take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
(spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
this for me? Thanks,
Van JonesUnless your SAN people totally botched the configuration of the device, my
guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you running on fiber or
ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches, firewalls, etc?
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones|||Here's what our network admin says...
The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.

>--Original Message--
>Unless your SAN people totally botched the configuration
of the device, my
>guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you
running on fiber or
>ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches,
firewalls, etc?
>--
>Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
>See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
>"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
onld[vbcol=seagreen]
SAN[vbcol=seagreen]
runs[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Well, who configured your SAN? Did they configure it for SQL Server? It is
not as simple as, "just get a SAN, and SQL Server will be faster." It has
to be configured correctly, both on the SAN side and the OS/SQL Server side,
in order to make it worth the investment...
Have a look at the thread "Running SQL database off of SAN -- is it feasible
?" in this group, started on 3/14. There should be plenty of reading there
for you, with some pointers to finding the smoking gun(s) causing your
performance issues.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19d001c5314d$163f57e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Here's what our network admin says...
> The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
> data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
> connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.
>
> of the device, my
> running on fiber or
> firewalls, etc?
> in message
> the
> onld
> SAN
> runs
> but|||Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't have
much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for your
intended workload.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones|||Van -
Do you know how the drive sets were configured (e.g. RAID level, etc) ?
This can effect performance.
Where are you restoring from ? tape or disk backup ? If tape, channel
speed and cache could be a problem.
Where is this backup located, on the SAN, if so what drive set ?
Reading and Writing to/from the same physical drive could be a problem?
"SANs are great but require a lot of up front care and feeding to deliver on
promises"
"Van Jones" wrote:

> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones
>|||I missed that detail. There is definitely some truth in the statement, "not
all SANs are created equal." Configuration is just as important. Quality
of the drives themselves can be a large factor as well.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O4VqdJVMFHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
> loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't
have
> much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
> SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
> storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for
your
> intended workload.

SAN issues, please help

We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
backups to it each night. This restore process used to
take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
(spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
this for me? Thanks,
Van Jones
Unless your SAN people totally botched the configuration of the device, my
guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you running on fiber or
ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches, firewalls, etc?
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones
|||Here's what our network admin says...
The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.

>--Original Message--
>Unless your SAN people totally botched the configuration
of the device, my
>guess is that your bottleneck is network. Are you
running on fiber or
>ethernet? Gig+, 100 MB, 10 MB? HBAs, switches,
firewalls, etc?
>--
>Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
>See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
>"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
onld[vbcol=seagreen]
SAN[vbcol=seagreen]
runs[vbcol=seagreen]
but
>
>.
>
|||Well, who configured your SAN? Did they configure it for SQL Server? It is
not as simple as, "just get a SAN, and SQL Server will be faster." It has
to be configured correctly, both on the SAN side and the OS/SQL Server side,
in order to make it worth the investment...
Have a look at the thread "Running SQL database off of SAN -- is it feasible
?" in this group, started on 3/14. There should be plenty of reading there
for you, with some pointers to finding the smoking gun(s) causing your
performance issues.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19d001c5314d$163f57e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Here's what our network admin says...
> The Network is Gigabit ethernet but the slow down of the
> data isn't across the network its on the SAN drives, the
> connection to the SAN from the server is 1GB fiber.
>
> of the device, my
> running on fiber or
> firewalls, etc?
> in message
> the
> onld
> SAN
> runs
> but
|||Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't have
much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for your
intended workload.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ab01c53149$19fe0a60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones
|||Van -
Do you know how the drive sets were configured (e.g. RAID level, etc) ?
This can effect performance.
Where are you restoring from ? tape or disk backup ? If tape, channel
speed and cache could be a problem.
Where is this backup located, on the SAN, if so what drive set ?
Reading and Writing to/from the same physical drive could be a problem?
"SANs are great but require a lot of up front care and feeding to deliver on
promises"
"Van Jones" wrote:

> We have a new SQL2000 SP3a server built that replaced an
> old SQL2000 SP3a server. The only difference between the
> 2 is that the new one has Win2003 instead of Win2000 and
> SAN drives instead of local drives. This new server is
> horribly slow. This server runs 8 SQL instances (the onld
> one didi too). I ran a comparison backup job and the SAN
> took 28 min and the old server with local drives took 12
> min. Not too bad, but on one instance we restore prod
> backups to it each night. This restore process used to
> take about 1 to 1.5 hrs on the local drives. Now it runs
> for 4.5 hrs on the SAN drives and isn't even half way
> done. The issue is that it's now interferring with
> another Prod job that forces me to have to stop the
> restore job because it takes so long. It's a Zyotec
> (spelling) SAN. Our network admin is looking into it, but
> isn't having much luck. Can anybody shed some light on
> this for me? Thanks,
> Van Jones
>
|||I missed that detail. There is definitely some truth in the statement, "not
all SANs are created equal." Configuration is just as important. Quality
of the drives themselves can be a large factor as well.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O4VqdJVMFHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Zyotec SAN's are not the best when it comes to high volume or sustained
> loads compared to other SANs such as EMC, EVA etc. They usually don't
have
> much cache in relation to others as well. If they did not configure the
> SAN's drives properly you can get a bit hit over dedicated direct attached
> storage. Sounds like they did a really poor job of configuring it for
your
> intended workload.

SAN impact on performance

We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application. With
cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID 1
for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the data
files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups. The SAN
is fiber channel with RAID 5.
Questions:
* If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID 1?
* Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Thanks in advance,
Mark> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
Since your application is write-intensive, I suggest you place log files on
RAID 1 (or 10) that are isolated from data files.

> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Given the choice between local RAID 10 and SAN RAID 5, I would opt for local
disk. The optimal solution would be SAN RAID 10 for data on dedicated
spindles. Consider placing logs on the SAN only if RAID 1/10. Importantly,
don't share spindles with other servers on the SAN if performance is
important.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>|||Performance could be poor in either case with only 1 active spindle for
tempdb and logs. And in the first case you only have 2 spindles serving up
data. In SAN case RAID 5 takes a hit during writes. Biggest determinant I
think is how many disks in the RAID5 set on the SAN?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>

SAN impact on performance

We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application. With
cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID 1
for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the data
files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups. The SAN
is fiber channel with RAID 5.
Questions:
* If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID 1?
* Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Thanks in advance,
Mark> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
Since your application is write-intensive, I suggest you place log files on
RAID 1 (or 10) that are isolated from data files.
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Given the choice between local RAID 10 and SAN RAID 5, I would opt for local
disk. The optimal solution would be SAN RAID 10 for data on dedicated
spindles. Consider placing logs on the SAN only if RAID 1/10. Importantly,
don't share spindles with other servers on the SAN if performance is
important.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>|||Performance could be poor in either case with only 1 active spindle for
tempdb and logs. And in the first case you only have 2 spindles serving up
data. In SAN case RAID 5 takes a hit during writes. Biggest determinant I
think is how many disks in the RAID5 set on the SAN?
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>

SAN impact on performance

We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application. With
cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID 1
for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the data
files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups. The SAN
is fiber channel with RAID 5.
Questions:
* If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID 1?
* Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Thanks in advance,
Mark
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
Since your application is write-intensive, I suggest you place log files on
RAID 1 (or 10) that are isolated from data files.

> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
Given the choice between local RAID 10 and SAN RAID 5, I would opt for local
disk. The optimal solution would be SAN RAID 10 for data on dedicated
spindles. Consider placing logs on the SAN only if RAID 1/10. Importantly,
don't share spindles with other servers on the SAN if performance is
important.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>
|||Performance could be poor in either case with only 1 active spindle for
tempdb and logs. And in the first case you only have 2 spindles serving up
data. In SAN case RAID 5 takes a hit during writes. Biggest determinant I
think is how many disks in the RAID5 set on the SAN?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Mark" <mark@.idonotlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:ee0cgzD2HHA.5740@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We're going to be hosting a write intensive non-clustered application.
> With cost constraints in place, we are down to two options:
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disk in RAID 1 for
> tempdb/log files, and 4 disks in RAID 10 for the data files.
> Dell 2950 with 8 disks and SAN: 2 disks in RAID 1 for OS, 2 disks in RAID
> 1 for tempdb, 2 disks in RAID 1 for log files, and using a SAN for the
> data files. The remaining 2 physical disks would be used for backups.
> The SAN is fiber channel with RAID 5.
> Questions:
> * If we use a SAN for the data files, is the best place for the log files
> and temp db still locally on the fixed disks so we can leverage the RAID
> 1?
> * Any general comments on comparing the scenarios above?
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>
>

SAN expansion with Basic disks instead of Dynamic?

Hi all,
From what I've read, dynamic disks are not supported as shared drives
when using a Windows 2003 cluster, only basic disks.
What happens when you want to add more capacity to your cluster's shared
disk by adding more physical disks to the SAN? Will it work if the
shared disks are basic? I thought you needed to use dynamic disks to do
this?
thanks a lot,
alec
It is possible but it isn't easy. It also depends on how the manufacturer
presents the LUN to the OS.
How to Extend the Partition of a Cluster Shared Disk
http://support.microsoft.com/default...uct=winsvr2003
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Alec Waters" <alec.waters@.NdatalineO.ScoP.AukM> wrote in message
news:4163fc8b$0$17588$afc38c87@.news.easynet.co.uk. ..
> Hi all,
> From what I've read, dynamic disks are not supported as shared drives
> when using a Windows 2003 cluster, only basic disks.
> What happens when you want to add more capacity to your cluster's shared
> disk by adding more physical disks to the SAN? Will it work if the
> shared disks are basic? I thought you needed to use dynamic disks to do
> this?
> thanks a lot,
> alec
> --
>

SAN drives and the transaction logs

In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
data and log files? Or will it make any performance difference for the data
and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the data
is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?
SAN vendors will tell you that it doesn't make any difference. Then they
will tell you to RAID5 all the disks to lower the entry cost of the array.
I continue to use the same best practices with separate LUNs for Data and
Log files. Plus those LUNS must be from different physical disk sets in the
array. On the highest-end arrays, the SAN may move stuff around to tune
itself, but for most of us, we still have to provision the storage system
manually. Just because we go from a semi-dumb system with megabytes of
cache to a moderately bright system having gigabytes of cache does not mean
the fundamentals change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Jay Warmack" <JayWarmack@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4218672-9768-449F-AB68-95240B88828E@.microsoft.com...
> In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
> always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
> performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files? Or will it make any performance difference for the
> data
> and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the
> data
> is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?
|||"Jay Warmack" <JayWarmack@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4218672-9768-449F-AB68-95240B88828E@.microsoft.com...
> In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
> always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
> performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files?
Yes, it does. The SAN should be architected to provide multiple and separate
spindles.

> Or will it make any performance difference for the data
> and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the
> data
> is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?
Why would you not know?
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
|||I agree with what Geoff and Russ said. Just want to add that in a large
enterprise, there is often tension between what an individual app wants and
what can be effectively managed and scale from the central storage
perspective. Treating all the storage requests generically often facilitates
SAN manageability and scalability, but may be sub-optimal for a particular
app.
If you are in a smaller environment or if your app is relatively important
in the grand scheme of 'SAN things', you may have greater leverage in making
more specific storage configuration requests, and you should take full
advanatge of that.

> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files?
It still makes sense to have data and log on different LUNs even if these
LUNs are not from completely different spindles in the array. If you look at
the end-to-end I/O path, this alone does give you some isolation.
Linchi
"Jay Warmack" wrote:

> In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
> always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
> performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files? Or will it make any performance difference for the data
> and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the data
> is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?
|||Yes, it still does. Keep in mind that with virtualized storage this can mean
that other high write applications can be using the same drives as your SQL
Server data and log files, so a SAN can offer lower performance than locally
attached storage. Most SANs have the capability of doing Zoning which is
where you can carve out disks in your SAN which you can dedicate to your
logs, or to your data files. These disks can similarly be made RAID 10 or
RAID 5 - whatever makes most sense for your SQL Server.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Jay Warmack" <JayWarmack@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4218672-9768-449F-AB68-95240B88828E@.microsoft.com...
> In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
> always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
> performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files? Or will it make any performance difference for the
> data
> and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the
> data
> is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?
|||First of all, I want to say that I agree with all of the other respondents;
however, I would like to point out a few misconceptions when dealing with
consolidation, whether that may be Server and/or Storage consolidation.
So, to begin, at the nut of things, we are still working with physical
devices, from the host, through the bus, out through the network, between
the layers, and to the disks, but at the end of the day, they are still
disks.
Now, pick a disk, any disk, and let's say it's a 15K RPM drive. How many
sustained IOPS can it support? Does that change if the IO stream comes from
a single host or from an aggregated set of hosts? What if the IO is
directed by an intelligent controller?
Yes, it was rhetorical. The answer is that it makes absolutely no
difference. With slight variations among the vendors, a practical limit
would be about 150 to 200 IOPS per device, at best. Other than capacity and
rotational speed, not much has changed in disk throughput in nearly 20
years. To combat this physical limitation, RAID and controller cache was
created; thus, we stripe disks, and then we stripe again. We buy as much
memory as we can, on each of the sub-layers, and we cache. We do everything
in our power to keep from using those disks as often as we can.
This gets to the next point: consolidation. Now, let's say that we want to
build a single large SQL Server installation and consolidate all of the
little independent installations to this one. How do you size the
consolidated server?
Again, it is rhetorical. The same way as if you were building a single
large database installation. You have 4 main sub-systems to size: CPU,
Memory, Disk IO, and Network IO. The system must be built to handle the
aggregated load from all of the applications just as if they were all
directed at a single solution.
Now, consolidated systems tend to drive randomness to an extreme, which also
lowers the throughput of the underlying sub-systems.
Storage consolidation is no different. Just because we can buy larger
capacity drives and consolidate all of our disparate installations onto a
single storage fabric does not mean we have sufficient IO throughput. We
have to consider all metrics, just like system consolidation.
Unfortunately, disks capacities have grown far faster than their respective
IO limitations. 5,400 RPM drives can support about 50 random IOPS; 7,200
RPM, about 70 IOPS; 10K RPM, 100 to 120 IOPS; and 15K RPM, 150 IOPS.
What is the typical OLTP database size? What is a typical associated IOPS
for such a size?
My experience says about 1 to 10 GB, perhaps 50 to 100 GB would not be
unheard of. Anything larger and you would be needing to discuss archiving,
or at least partitioning some of the data, or you are not talking about a
strictly OLTP system anymore. Once you get into DSS and OLAP system
discusses, size and throughput start to converge; so, one does not tend to
see these problems as much on those types of systems. So, for now, let's
stay with the OLTP discussion.
Now, what about the IOPS? Well, that's the funny thing: there is no
correlation between size and usage. There may be a general linear increase
relationship, but I have seen busy, small and large, as well as idle small
and large. Nevertheless, 500 to 1,000 random IOPS would not be atypical for
any reasonably scaled solution. Coupled with the periodic Checkpoint
process, 10,000 IOPS and more would certainly not be out of the question.
In the case of server consolidation, these levels tend to be about the same;
however, the IOPS tend to reduce the burstiness and level off, but maintain
the same high IO request limits, but now, they are sustained levels.
By way of example, let us say we have 10 databases to consolidate, each
about 10 GB in size, each about 500 to 1,000 sustained random IOPS.
How many disks (internal or SAN-based) would be needed to store the data?
One, probably, perhaps 2 to 4 smaller ones. We would be talking about only
from 100 to 200 GB in aggregate.
How about the IOPS? How many disks? At least 30 to 70.
Now, after all the SAN Administrators pick their jaws up off the floor,
consider this.
What if we are NOT consolidating servers? What if, instead, we only
consolidate the storage on a SAN, but maintain the same number of 10
individual installations. If you virtualize the storage, ask yourself the
same questions. How many disks to store the data? How many disks to
support the IOPS load?
...
You better say the same number, as a minimum, and perhaps more because under
a consolidated server, the host knows about the IO requirements, but under
the Storage-only consolidation, each host is "blind" to the others, and, as
such, IO contention can increase.
If you answered any other way, then you know now exactly why your SAN is not
performing as well as dedicated arrays.
Finally, to make one last point, YOU BETTER KNOW THE UNDERLYING DISK
CONFIGURATION, you're the DBA; it's your job! You will need to spend lots
and lots of time with your SAN Administrators. I've always found bribes to
work best.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Jay Warmack" <JayWarmack@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4218672-9768-449F-AB68-95240B88828E@.microsoft.com...
> In the old days when we have physical disk drives in our SQLServers, we
> always located the logs on a seperate volume from the data files for
> performance reasons. In the new era of using SAN storage for the database
> files, does it still make sense to use seperate logical SAN drives for the
> data and log files? Or will it make any performance difference for the
data
> and log files to be on the same SAN drive since we don't know where the
data
> is really physically going 'under the covers' of the SAN technology?

SAN drive config for SQL Cluster

What's the best physical drive configuration for a SQL cluster on a SAN?
Would creating a large (14drive/2buses) physcial RAID 1+0 array with
appropriate sized LUNs be acceptable for the quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc, and sql
tlog shared resources?
Or would individual mirrored drives defined as LUNs be better?
Thanks,
Randy Geyer
With SQL 2000 you don't separate tempdb anymore.
If you use MSDTC that should be on it's own disk - if you don't use it for
any applications - don't install/configure it. SQL does not require it.
The Quorum and T-Logs should be on RAID 1 LUNs. Separate one of course.
Your databases can go on RAID 5 or 1+0 nicely.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C63B0B49-2C70-4489-B38B-94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...
> What's the best physical drive configuration for a SQL cluster on a SAN?
> Would creating a large (14drive/2buses) physcial RAID 1+0 array with
> appropriate sized LUNs be acceptable for the quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc, and
> sql
> tlog shared resources?
> Or would individual mirrored drives defined as LUNs be better?
> Thanks,
> Randy Geyer
|||I would think there's no harm in putting tempdb on its own disk and still
many benefits as it's often the most active DB on a SQL box especially in
terms of writes (in which case the more spindles in the LUN the better).
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:umcOjf10EHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> With SQL 2000 you don't separate tempdb anymore.
> If you use MSDTC that should be on it's own disk - if you don't use it for
> any applications - don't install/configure it. SQL does not require it.
> The Quorum and T-Logs should be on RAID 1 LUNs. Separate one of course.
> Your databases can go on RAID 5 or 1+0 nicely.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C63B0B49-2C70-4489-B38B-94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to the
SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
different parts of the same SAN disks.
So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or more
answers are no, so don't move it.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I would think there's no harm in putting tempdb on its own disk and still
>many benefits as it's often the most active DB on a SQL box especially in
>terms of writes (in which case the more spindles in the LUN the better).
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:umcOjf10EHA.2608@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||Agreed.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
> cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
> had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
> understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to
> the SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
> different parts of the same SAN disks.
> So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
> different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or
> more answers are no, so don't move it.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||Running RAID-10 (0+1/1+0) for all drives will be a better benefit than
RAID-5, far outweighing TempDb on a separate drive.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Years ago Tempdb could be put into RAM. Microsoft took this feature away
> cause too many customers were not getting a benefit from it, they actually
> had worse performance. While you can indeed move Tempdb, you have to
> understand if your application(s) will really benefit. If you move it to
the
> SAN on different LUN's, are they really different SAN disks or just
> different parts of the same SAN disks.
> So, if your application(s) will benefit, will the SAN disks really be
> different disks? If yes to both, I say go for it. In most cases, one or
more[vbcol=seagreen]
> answers are no, so don't move it.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Mike Hodgson" <mwh_junk@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eenXBI30EHA.1740@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
SAN?[vbcol=seagreen]
and
>
|||If the availability of disk space is first priority, try
creating 2 arrays: one containing RAID 5 LUNs, and the
other containing RAID 0+1 LUNs. Then plan the LUN
allocated for data and install on RAID 5 LUN while
transaction log on 0+1 LUN. ^^
Regards,
Alfred XYZ

>--Original Message--
>Running RAID-10 (0+1/1+0) for all drives will be a better
benefit than
>RAID-5, far outweighing TempDb on a separate drive.
>Regards
>--
>Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Zurich, Switzerland
>IM: mike@.epprecht.net
>MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-
america.com> wrote in[vbcol=seagreen]
>message news:uz$vmU30EHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
this feature away[vbcol=seagreen]
from it, they actually[vbcol=seagreen]
Tempdb, you have to[vbcol=seagreen]
If you move it to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
disks or just[vbcol=seagreen]
disks really be[vbcol=seagreen]
most cases, one or[vbcol=seagreen]
>more
own disk and still[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL box especially in[vbcol=seagreen]
the LUN the better).[vbcol=seagreen]
america.com> wrote in[vbcol=seagreen]
if you don't use it[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL does not require[vbcol=seagreen]
Separate one of course.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
94C90343660B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL cluster on a[vbcol=seagreen]
>SAN?
RAID 1+0 array with[vbcol=seagreen]
quorum, tempdb, ms-dtc,[vbcol=seagreen]
>and
be better?
>
>.
>
|||Use RAID 5 on read-only volumes. Any disk volume that does more than 10 percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.
Use RAID 10 whenever the array experiences more than 10 percent writes.
In general, for OLTP systems, RAID 10 is the best for data + logs.
Regarding the original qs - as many have already answered -- have seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One huge lun is not recommended for high availability.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||Thank you Uttam. You came very close to answering my original qs.
My question is: I'd like to create a large physical raid 1+0 array with 12
physical drives on the SAN. Then, partition that array into several LUNs for
the shared resources (quorum, logs, ms-dtc, etc). Space is not an issue. Is
that configuration more performant than individual RAID 1 arrays with 2
drives each for each shared resource?
Thanks! - rg
"Uttam Parui[MS]" wrote:

> Use RAID 5 on read-only volumes. Any disk volume that does more than 10 percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.
> Use RAID 10 whenever the array experiences more than 10 percent writes.
> In general, for OLTP systems, RAID 10 is the best for data + logs.
> Regarding the original qs - as many have already answered -- have seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One huge lun is not recommended for high availability.
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
> Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
>
>
|||Your partitioning of the array into several LUNs must be transparent to the
OS, and the LUNs should be presented to the OS as separate SCSI (SCSI on
Fibre) devices.
In general, it may perform better. But it depends a lot on the ability of
the SAN to handle a mixed I/O workload. For certain SAN with large and
layered cache, mixing sequential log I/Os with random data I/Os may not have
as big an adverse impact on the performance as it does with some other
storage devices. But it is not advisable to share data files and log files
on the same spindles for disaster recovery reasons.
Linchi
"Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADF19E59-3ACF-43AF-917B-7308D773BE62@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you Uttam. You came very close to answering my original qs.
> My question is: I'd like to create a large physical raid 1+0 array with
12
> physical drives on the SAN. Then, partition that array into several LUNs
for
> the shared resources (quorum, logs, ms-dtc, etc). Space is not an issue.
Is[vbcol=seagreen]
> that configuration more performant than individual RAID 1 arrays with 2
> drives each for each shared resource?
> Thanks! - rg
> "Uttam Parui[MS]" wrote:
percent writes is not a good candidate for RAID 5.[vbcol=seagreen]
seperate luns for Quorum, msdtc, sql data, sql Tlogs, SQL backups etc. One
huge lun is not recommended for high availability.[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.[vbcol=seagreen]
Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security
vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following
websites:[vbcol=seagreen]

SAN Disk with SQL 2000 data files

Hi,
I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS on
it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there some
standard procedures that I should follow?
Thanks for any pointers!
- VHi
I would find out what the problem really it. It could be a problem with your
HBA driver or similar.
Un-installing SQL Server will not remove the data files.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Volcano" <volcano@.volcano.com> wrote in message
news:uumsjmPoFHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
> on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
> yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
> mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
> tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
> host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS
> on
> it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
> re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there
> some
> standard procedures that I should follow?
> Thanks for any pointers!
> - V
>

SAN Disk with SQL 2000 data files

Hi,
I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS on
it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there some
standard procedures that I should follow?
Thanks for any pointers!
- VHi
I would find out what the problem really it. It could be a problem with your
HBA driver or similar.
Un-installing SQL Server will not remove the data files.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Volcano" <volcano@.volcano.com> wrote in message
news:uumsjmPoFHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
> on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
> yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
> mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
> tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
> host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS
> on
> it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
> re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there
> some
> standard procedures that I should follow?
> Thanks for any pointers!
> - V
>

SAN Disk with SQL 2000 data files

Hi,
I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS on
it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there some
standard procedures that I should follow?
Thanks for any pointers!
- V
Hi
I would find out what the problem really it. It could be a problem with your
HBA driver or similar.
Un-installing SQL Server will not remove the data files.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Volcano" <volcano@.volcano.com> wrote in message
news:uumsjmPoFHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I had a small test setup with an SQL 2000 instance and its data files were
> on a SAN disk. After the shutdown following an automatic Windows update
> yesterday night, the SAN disk although shows up on the host and also gets
> mounted, I can't "explore" it. It's actually a LUN from an EMC box so I
> tried unmasking & remasking the LUN to the host, the disk shows up on the
> host but I can't access it. Now I want to reformat the disk and put NTFS
> on
> it afresh. But before that, I also want to cleanup the SQL instance and
> re-install it. Just uninstalling the SQL instance will do or are there
> some
> standard procedures that I should follow?
> Thanks for any pointers!
> - V
>

San Disk failing to come online.

Hello,
I'm clustering a single node (DELL 1850 and a PowerVault). I selected it to
place the quorum log on the SAN, but after the setup, it configures it with a
Local Quorum and the SAN disk fail to come online.
So, I'm trying to add additional SAN disk as resources to see what's going
on. I can add the Physical Disk resourse but again it fails when I try to
bring it online. Here are a few lines from the cluster log after it fails:
WARN [FM] FmpHandleResourceTransition: Resource failed, post a work item
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker waitingtype 0 context 8
INFO [GUM] Thread 0x940 UpdateLock wait on Type 0
INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate: lock was free, granted to 1
INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate successful, Sequence=641 Generation=0
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker dispatching seq 641type 0 context 8
INFO [GUM] GumpDoUnlockingUpdate releasing lock ownership
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: completed update seq 641type 0 context 8
INFO [FM] FmpPropagateResourceState: resource
1df3e42a-310d-4dbb-a334-403bda6afe22 failed event.
INFO [FM] FmpHandleResourceFailure: taking resource
1df3e42a-310d-4dbb-a334-403bda6afe22 and dependents offline
INFO [FM] FmpHandleGroupFailure, Entry: Group failure for
3e0e395f-ada4-4345-8f55-31eecabd089d...
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker waitingtype 0 context 65537
INFO [GUM] Thread 0x940 UpdateLock wait on Type 0
INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate: lock was free, granted to 1
INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate successful, Sequence=642 Generation=0
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker dispatching seq 642type 0 context 65537
INFO [GUM] GumpDoUnlockingUpdate releasing lock ownership
INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: completed update seq 642type 0 context 65537
WARN [FM] Group failure for 3e0e395f-ada4-4345-8f55-31eecabd089d, but can't
move. Failure count = 2.
INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: Terminate, ResourceEntry @. 000A4D40 Valid 0
INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] Stop watching PnP events for disk 6ad90ce8
WARN Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] RemoveDisk: WatchedList is empty
INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] Stop watching disk 6ad90ce8 - processed
INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: DiskCleanup started.
INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [DiskArb] StopPersistentReservations is called.
Any idea? I'm not an expect in clustering, but have setup many and have
never seen this before.
TIA!!!
Darin
We need more of the log...the section of the log you've posted appears to
have occurred after the failure.
Regards,
John
"DTully" <DTully@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CAA3B56C-FBAB-47FE-9656-29C00374A9D2@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I'm clustering a single node (DELL 1850 and a PowerVault). I selected it
to
> place the quorum log on the SAN, but after the setup, it configures it
with a
> Local Quorum and the SAN disk fail to come online.
> So, I'm trying to add additional SAN disk as resources to see what's going
> on. I can add the Physical Disk resourse but again it fails when I try to
> bring it online. Here are a few lines from the cluster log after it fails:
> WARN [FM] FmpHandleResourceTransition: Resource failed, post a work item
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker waiting type 0 context 8
> INFO [GUM] Thread 0x940 UpdateLock wait on Type 0
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate: lock was free, granted to 1
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate successful, Sequence=641 Generation=0
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker dispatching seq 641 type 0 context 8
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoUnlockingUpdate releasing lock ownership
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: completed update seq 641 type 0 context 8
> INFO [FM] FmpPropagateResourceState: resource
> 1df3e42a-310d-4dbb-a334-403bda6afe22 failed event.
> INFO [FM] FmpHandleResourceFailure: taking resource
> 1df3e42a-310d-4dbb-a334-403bda6afe22 and dependents offline
> INFO [FM] FmpHandleGroupFailure, Entry: Group failure for
> 3e0e395f-ada4-4345-8f55-31eecabd089d...
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker waiting type 0 context 65537
> INFO [GUM] Thread 0x940 UpdateLock wait on Type 0
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate: lock was free, granted to 1
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoLockingUpdate successful, Sequence=642 Generation=0
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: Locker dispatching seq 642 type 0 context 65537
> INFO [GUM] GumpDoUnlockingUpdate releasing lock ownership
> INFO [GUM] GumSendUpdate: completed update seq 642 type 0 context 65537
> WARN [FM] Group failure for 3e0e395f-ada4-4345-8f55-31eecabd089d, but
can't
> move. Failure count = 2.
> INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: Terminate, ResourceEntry @. 000A4D40 Valid 0
> INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] Stop watching PnP events for disk
6ad90ce8
> WARN Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] RemoveDisk: WatchedList is empty
> INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [PnP] Stop watching disk 6ad90ce8 - processed
> INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: DiskCleanup started.
> INFO Physical Disk <Disk>: [DiskArb] StopPersistentReservations is called.
> Any idea? I'm not an expect in clustering, but have setup many and have
> never seen this before.
> TIA!!!
> Darin