That really makes sense - servers don't like when their direct attached storage drops access to the pagefile, either. Trust me.
One question I have is that you've stated that you're looking to be able to swap the front end off when the lease expires, so you can ship the hardware back. So you're planning on forklift upgrading your servers? Are you planning on inplace upgrades for OS's, since in 3 years, Win2k probably won't be supported anymore? Not trying to bait or anything - as I said - I've got really big issues with the lines that SAN vendors use to hook companies in. If they are accurate, that's great, but I'm not willing to risk my environment on it until someone else who *isn't* a SAN vendor proves it works day in, day out. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:15 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > We are completely diskless. Not doing so would have made > the need for an > array card and a pair of drives in the server, which is the > costs we were > trying to avoid. As I could not say removing the redundancy > for the drives > so long as the page file was still there as then a single > drive failure > would have brought the server down. > > Yes, there are some possible issues with the boot from SAN > and the paging > file if connectivity is interrupted. While I have had a > number of persons > tell me this is an issue, I have not had anyone that could > tell me what > actually happens if the problem occurs. > > After talking with my EMC engineers and talking to customers, > some that are > and some that are not, no one that I spoke to has ever actually had a > problem with the page file being on the SAN. The only caveat > EMC would give > me is that you may want to shut servers down that have page > files on the SAN > during microcode upgrades. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shea, Linchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:06 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > Owen, as I understand there are still issues with boot from the SAN, > particularly with paging. IN your configuration, do you place > the page files > on the SAN or on the locally attached drives? > > Linchi > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:51 PM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > I would have to offer up a differing opinion. I did a pretty > > extensive cost > > analysis and was able to show a break even point by using SAN. > > > > Two factors entered in. Better utilization of disk capacity > > and the boot > > from SAN capability eliminated not only the drives, but also > > the cost of the > > array controller. The other soft costs of backup and > > manageability provided > > the ROI. > > > > We had a huge problem with our DBA's and developers insisting > > they might > > need 100 to 400 GB's of drive space over the course of a > > server lease and > > then when it came off lease they actually only had 20 or 30 > > GB's of data on > > the system. This allows me to only give them what they need > > at first and > > then scale it up as needed with minimal disruption. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:15 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > IMO, the *right* answer is to not buy a SAN for generalized > > storage. At the > > current price-per-mb rates of SAN solutions vs. Direct Attached > > Storage(DAS), I can waste a LOT of locally attached storage > > before I break > > even moving to a SAN. > > > > Don't get me wrong - SAN's have their place. I just don't > think most > > companies need them. And don't even get me started on NAS boxes, > > either. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:27 AM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the warning. > > > > > > I do plan on minimizing the number of LUNs, but my boss asked the > > > question and I wanted to be sure to have the /right/ > answer instead > > > of the /right-now/ answer. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:51 AM > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > Most vendors will allow you to slice and dice a SAN > array into as > > > > many LUNs of whatever size you want. Its absolutely the wrong > > > > thing to do, but it certainly can be done. > > > > > > > > Any time a phisical platter is partitioned, you're > going to take a > > > > performance hit - simply put, the heads can't be in two > places at > > > > once, so if two systems are trying to access data which is > > > > physically on the same platter, but logically on > different LUNs, > > > > there is head contention, and one of the two must wait for the > > > > other to finish "using" the heads, and then pay the additional > > > > price of a head seek across the platter to its assigned set of > > > > cylinders. > > > > > > > > In the case of your single 500GB RAID5 set in your SAN > being split > > > > into 300/100/50/50, you have in reality created 4 partitions on > > > > each spindle, with 60%/20%/10%/10% split on each > spindle. With a > > > > large number of platters, and larger stripe sizes, its > > > > theoretically possible to reduce the chances of > contention within > > > > the SAN, but realistically speaking, chances are there > is going to > > > > be some contention, and therefore some performance hits > associated > > > > with managing your disks this way. > > > > > > > > Its one of the lies^H^H^H^H omissions commonly done in > the sales > > > > pitches of the big storage vendors. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:07 PM > > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > > Subject: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have a RAID-5 array of (let's say) 500GB, can > you create > > > > > LUNs of an arbitrary size to be presented to the > > servers? E.g, a > > > > > 300GB, a 100GB, and > > > > > two 50GB? Or is there a convention that all LUNs have to be > > > > > a uniform > > > > > size? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > > > > Chris Levis > > > > > Applied Geographics, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are > > confidential and are intended solely for the use of the > > individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are > > NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for > > delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised > > that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, > > dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this > > e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
