dbTalk Databases Forums  

Physical Disks vs. Partitions

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering


Discuss Physical Disks vs. Partitions in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
Michael [multnomah]
 
Posts: n/a

Default Physical Disks vs. Partitions - 02-02-2004 , 03:33 PM






We have our 2 node SQL Server 2000 [Windows 2003] Cluster
connected to a NAS device. We have created 4 LUNs, 2 for
each node, with one DATA and one LOG. On the second node
[QAT2] we have the 2 LUNS carved up into 6 partitions [3
for DATA and 3 for LOG, K:, L:, M:, N:, O:, P:]. On the
second node [QAT2] we want to install 3 Virtual Servers
[with 3 corresponding Named Instances], but after the
first Virtual Server/Named Instance gets installed on
drives K: [DATA] and L: [LOG], when I run the SQL Server
installation, the other partitions [M:, N:, O:, P:] are
not available for installation. This is presumably
because the first Virtual Server/Named Instance is already
connected to the LUN [Physical Disk]. Can someone please
explain this?

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Stephen Strong
 
Posts: n/a

Default RE: Physical Disks vs. Partitions - 02-05-2004 , 03:26 PM






As a general rule I would always present each virtual disk/volume to the cluster with it's own LUN. As a MCS physical disk resource must be able to (independantly of other disk resources) failover to another node it doesn't make sense to partition a virtual disk that has the same LUN.

Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.