|
What I mean is following the best practices when building
your cluster servers that you will mount the LUNS from. We
had Microsoft here and we asked them how to manage volumes at the TB level, and
they told us to simply not create volumes that large because they will be
unmanageable. The NTFS file system is not made for large volumes as such,
thats why there is no solution to the management because that is not what it is
made for. Trying to defrag a TB of data is something that you do not want
to attempt. Our Unix folks always get a laugh because their filesystem has
not had the problem with fragmenting for 20 years, and Microsoft still has yet
to conquer that area. I tell them, that some things are just better suited
for different jobs, Unix is good for storage and storage management,
Windows is good a the presentation and authentication of that
storage.
Nate From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due Diligence Thanks. Nathaniel, could you elaborate a
bit on what you mean by "server build consistency," what constitutes a "large"
NTFS volume, and what you see as the management difficulties associated with
that large volume? -- nme From: Brian Desmond
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You
must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with the HBAs
from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large lun's to
Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V
Contractor NASIC/SCNA I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs
on a SAN using Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However,
making sure you follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using
MSCS following those best practices as well. Your server build
consistency will dictate the availability of your
resources. I would however hesitate
when creating large volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to
manage. The key solution would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then
mount the SAN LUNs onto the virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the
volume as you see fit, but it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system
to manage. Nate From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Noah
Eiger Hello: I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in the
legal sense, but for my own peace of mind... I have
made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we should
consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows, <200 users but
several TB worth of data) onto an iSCSI SAN. All of my research so far has
indicated that once you create a LUN on the SAN, servers do not have a problem
"seeing" or using the drives. Do list
folks have any experiences or resources that might give me pause in following
through with this more expensive solution (vis-à-vis NAS, fiber SAN was never a
real option)? BTW: I am aware of the reservations about SATA drives and do not
mean to re-hash that discussion. Thanks. --
nme -- -- -- |
RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:19:06 -0800
- RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due... Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
- RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SA... Brian Desmond
