Has anyone clustered SQL server 2000 using a NAS server (eg. Dell PowerVault
745N) as the shared storage? I know that SAN is recommended but costs are
vastly higher. Any reasons as to why it shouldn't be done would be helpful.

thanks - pete.

Hi

NAS is not fully supported. If you are going to build a cluster, make sure
that all the components are on the Windows Hardware Compatibility List for
Clustering. If not, don't expect support from Microsoft when things go bad.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Pete Waters" <petewaters008 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Not being supported by Microsoft is a good enough reason for me to not try
it...

There are cheaper failover options that are less hardware strict, such as a
product called double-take (www.nsisoftware.com no affiliation...)

--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting

www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm

www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.

www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions


"Pete Waters" <petewaters008 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the response. Whilst I appreciate that clustering with NAS is not
supported by Microsoft, I'm interested to find out if people are actually
doing it. If they are and it seems to be reliable enough then i'd imagine it
would be worth the cost saving.

thanks - pete.



"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net> wrote

Hi Kevin,

I'm looking for an Active/Active cluster solution - not a passive failover
one.

thanks - pete.



"Kevin3NF" <KHill (AT) NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc (DOT) com> wrote

Basic Question...what is more important to you? Data or Price?

If you don't mind loosing data in a supposedly "high availability" scenario,
then do it the cheap way.
Is your network and switches as reliable as 99.999%? If not, when they fail,
and you end up with data corruption.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Pete Waters" <petewaters008 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

The internal network and switches are certainly 99.999% reliable (or at
least have been over the last year!). I'm more interested in peoples
practical experiences rather than the obvious value of data argument. I see
that Microsoft are beginning to support iSCSI - any experience with that?

thanks - pete.




"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net> wrote

Well, I've been at 3 customers who used non-HCL equipment, 2 of them used a
NAS. Well, they all had one option, revert to yesterday's good backup. One
was an investment bank that lost about US$ 50 million due to the failure.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Pete Waters" <petewaters008 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Hi Mike,

Ah - that's not good! That's the kind of info i'm after - real world cases -
thanks. Have you had any experience with using iSCSI in these setups?

pete.


"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net> wrote

Hi

No. Not iSCSI. After the IT Directors got a good beating by the
shareholders, they all went SAN.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Pete Waters" <petewaters008 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote