I need some advice / help on a DAS system ( at least this is what I
think I need hardware wise to complete this and pull my butt of out
the fire). I am sure the next time I attempt to do server clustering
things will go much smoother because I will have learned from all the
misstakes I am making on the first go around.

What I am trying to do is build an active / passive SQL2000 fail over
cluster for a database. The database is currently running off a
single SQL2000 server. But we have out growing the processing power
of the server, given time we will out grow the internal disk storage
too.

Thanks to this news group I have some nice very detailed whitepapers
on how to setup a fail over cluster, really wish I had found these
articles before purchasing some of my hardware. [already purchased
two Intel SRSH4 4-way 2GHz Xeon systems as my database servers].

I have never done server clustering before and already have broken the
golden rule of not using a configuration that is on the approved
cluster catalog listing, I am sorry but I didn't know such a list
existed. I lost a lot sleep that night when I discovered that bit of
information.

After reading the documentation I learning that I need some sort of
block level access to a direct attached storage connected by
fibrechannel or external SCSI or iSCSI. Before I started this I was
lead to believe by a paid consultant from the company that wrote the
database application that I could store and access the database on a
NAS via 1GB ethernet. [I also have a very nice NAS now too, but I can
use it for storing user profiles/home directories and database backups
before shipping them off site so all is not lost there]. After
reading this articles I feel this is incorrect since this only
provides file level access and server clusting requires block level
access. My boss is dealing with the consultan regarding the bump
advice, but this doesn't help me out.

Would something like a Modular Smart Array 500 Storage say from HP
work as an example (url at the end of the message). I can buy it as
complete kit with the storage array, external SCSI cables and HBA.
The storage array is designed for clusting with ProLiant servers, but
how much difference can there be from a ProLiant server vs the Intel
servers I already have. Would this work with the equipment that I
have or am I in big trouble since these two 4-way system are too
expensive to be use as door stops or paper weights. Sending the
units back is not an option as they were custom built.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

link to Modular Smart Aray

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/s...ter/index.html

Now you have two Intel Servers, and What is your Storage,
do you have to buy a Storage Array or Have you a HP
storage array???
If you don´t have a storage array, you can buy a Eurologic
Storage array S320, and buy two LSI Raid adapter with
cluster support, you can use Mylex raid adapters too,
since the adapter have cluster support.
I have already made a SQL Server Cluster with Intel
Hardware and Eurologi Storage without problems

Cesar kubo

Your entire solution needs to be in the Windows Catalog as
a cluster solution, or the two nodes need to be and the
storage device on the multi-cluster list. That is your
best way to check if what you want to use is supported.

These are outlined in the KBs 304415, 327518, and 309395.
For NAS and clusters, see 812504, and for SQL and NAS, see
304261. NAS (which many iSCSI devices are) is not
supported by SQL Server at this time on a cluster.

So as long as you meet the requirements for the device,
you can use it.

At this point, SAN is the way to go.

Ouch.

When building a cluster, I find it best to work with a hardware and services
vendor that has experience in building certified clustering solutions. You
should be able to use your existing boxes as non-clustered hosts for
development or testing envorinments where you don't need high availability,
but I wouldn't use a mom-and-pop custom job as a production clustered host.
IMHO, if your consultant is not aware that NAS devices aren't supported for
SQL server, then I suggest you find a new consultant. There is no telling
what other expensive gaps there are in his knowledge. FYI, NAS boxes are
useful for storing SQL backups.

You really need to be working with a certified vendor that can deliver a
complete solution, including support. Clustering is about high availability
and without the support both before and after installation, you won't get
what you are looking for. Home-grown is fine for testing and development,
but production systems are on an entirely different level.

I have had good results with Dell hardware and EMC storage systems. Since
Dell sells and supports EMC gear, you get one source for everything and a
guarantee that it will work as designed. In fairness, IBM and HP both do
this as well, but I do not have any direct experience with IBM in several
years and have had bad service experience with HP/Compaq (post-merger
experience at that). I have used the Dell 4-way boxes as clustered hosts
with good results. I recently outgrew those and have upsized to Unisys
ES7000 systems, but with the same EMC storage box.

Sorry for the bad news, but since I don't have to worry about getting paid
for this, I can be as blunt as necessary.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com


<Bill> wrote

Thanks for advice, I would prefer to hear the truth no matter how bad
or grim it is. At least I know where I stand, and I don't want put
home grown cluster solution in place that may or may not work. I
can see now that the conusltant has pushed me down wrong path for a
failover cluster solution and left me hang out to dry. Since a
failover cluster solution is out of the question what type of external
RAID DAS storage system should I use for a non-clustered
configuration. The server chassis don't have enough room hold the
drives for the database so I need to go to an external storage
solution.

SRSH4 is Intel Shasta Motherboard, this motherboard have 8
PCI slots, 4 hot-plug e 4 non hot-plug PCI Slot, buy a
external storage array and a HBA, plug the HBA card in
slot 8, because is a 64 bit slot and is a hot-plug slot.

Cesar

You have two types of solutions available to you. SCSI and Fibre Channel.
SCSI is lower cost and may be the most cost-effective option for a
stand-alone system. I use the Dell PowerVault arrays and Perc controllers
and have had excellent results. Their best current system supports
Ultra-320 SCSI end-to-end. The 220s PowerVault holds 14 drives up to 140GB.
15KRPM is available up to 73GB. Perc4 cards support Raid 1+0. You can get
a couple of these (1 for data and 1 for log) without breaking your budget.

The next step up is a Fibre Attached SAN of some type. (The difference
between a SAN and a DAS is whether or not you have a switch in the middle
of the FC connection.) The advantage of FC storage is that if it is HCL
compliant, you can use it as a cluster storage later. (You don't want to do
a SCSI cluster). I personally like the CX line from Dell | EMC. Thay start
off small but can be expanded as you need. They also are data-in-place
upgradable so you don't have to do a forklift upgrade, just replace the
control unit and it is now a bigger storage system. I have the big-dog
unit, the CX-600. IMHO, FC has two immediate advantages. First, most FC
units have decent cache, usually much larger than SCSI RAID cards. Second,
FC is full duplex. Reading and writing data won't interfere with each
other. You can checkpoint a database without sucking up all your IO
bandwidth. Make sure and get an FC2 (2Gbps) system that is FC2 all the way
to the disks. Anything else is old technology and not worth the expense.

Hope this helps,

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com



<Bill> wrote

I noticed you were thinking of the MSA500. If you have
purchased this or plan on purchasing this make sure you
have the latest Firmware for it. If you don't you start
getting a lot of SQL Server data corruption errors (Error
605)caused by the enabled write caching. The latest
firmware corrects this issue. This is a known bug issue
with HP and Microsoft.