|
I probably wouldn’t present a multi TB LUN myself. Think of the
restore time if you toasted that much data. 3 400GB (or 4 300GB or etc) mountpoints
is a better idea imho. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA 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 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: 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... Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
- RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SA... Brian Desmond
