That's still downtime, however. Might only be 30 seconds, but that's downtime. And frankly, it takes more than 30 seconds for Exchange to sync the database with the in memory cache and the logs.
This is one area that SANs really still don't have it right, but part of that is because Microsoft didn't write Exchange to support that kind of backup. They are addressing that in Titanium, I believe, but its not reality today. EMC provides an alternate solution, but its not the same. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:43 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > It is all about how you handle the split. You can make the > split, have a > second server connect to the BCV, and then do your backup > from that second > server. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:37 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > That's an offline backup, not an online backup. Online > backups walk the > database itself, page by page, therefore checking the > underlying structure > of the database and the contents. > > I'm familiar with the process you're describing, and trust > me, its not the > same. Online backups don't require any downtime. > > In the database world, I think you'd call it a database dump > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:45 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > With Exchange 2000 it makes use of MS provided API's. It > > provides the same > > backup as if you shut the system down and then made a backup of it. > > > > If you are talking about making a hot back up to another > > server yes you can > > also do that, but it would not be quite as automated. > There are white > > papers available to on the Powerlink site on how to do this. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:42 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > That's not an online backup - that's a snapshot backup, which > > isn't the same > > thing. And is REALLY not what you want to do do Exchange. > > > > I'm talking about a backup via the Exchange Backup API. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:29 AM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > Well let me answer your question for you. Yes you can. > They have a > > > windows resource kit that includes Exchange tools to do > what you are > > > asking for. > > > However the Exchange DB will need to be unmounted (not > > > shutdown) during that > > > time of the split which could take a few seconds to a couple > > > of minutes > > > depending on the size of the DB. > > > > > > Notice this is only during the split, not while it is syncing up. > > > > > > They should have scripts available for you or be able to > > make some to > > > automate all or part of this process. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:45 AM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > I guess I'm fortunate enough to work in an environment in > which the > > > managers manage and they pay myself and the other > engineers here to > > > be the subject > > > matter experts on things, and undertake financial decisions > > as a team. > > > > > > The discussions I've had with EMC engineers have generally > > ended up as > > > "stump the engineer" type questions - there are a few > > things I'd like > > > to be able to do but no one can tell me that it can be done. For > > > instance - when running multiple Exchange[1] servers, create a > > > roving LUN that mounts to the > > > server, then backup Exchange to disk, then disconnect, > > lather, rinse, > > > repeat. You get rocking fast direct to disk backups, then > > > connect the rover > > > directly to the backup box and rip to tape. > > > > > > Roger > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > [1] Could just as easily be any database > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Shea, Linchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:45 PM > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you Roger. But the management may think otherwise. > > > > > > > > Linchi > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:15 PM > > > > > 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%% > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > 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.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]
