| Author | Messages | |
neiger@xxxx.yyy
 | | 12/12/2005 6:41 AM |
| Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in
the legal sense, but for my own peace of mind¦
I
have made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we
should consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows, <200 users
but several TB worth of data) onto an iSCSI SAN. All of my research so far has
indicated that once you create a LUN on the SAN, servers do not have a problem seeing
or using the drives.
Do
list folks have any experiences or resources that might give me pause in
following through with this more expensive solution (vis-Ã -vis NAS,
fiber SAN was never a real option)? BTW: I am aware of the reservations about
SATA drives and do not mean to re-hash that discussion.
Thanks.
--
nme
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
| AD000001161
Posts:0
| | 12/12/2005 6:51 AM |
| I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs on a SAN using
Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However, making sure you
follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using MSCS following
those best practices as well. Your server build consistency will
dictate the availability of your resources.
I would however hesitate when creating large
volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to manage. The key solution
would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then mount the SAN LUNs onto the
virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the volume as you see fit, but it
would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system to manage.
Nate
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah
EigerSent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in the
legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I have
made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we should
consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
Do list
folks have any experiences or resources that might give me pause in following
through with this more expensive solution (vis-à-vis NAS, fiber SAN was never a
real option)? BTW: I am aware of the reservations about SATA drives and do not
mean to re-hash that discussion.
Thanks.
--
nme
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release
Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
| AD000001338
Posts:0
| | 12/12/2005 7:05 AM |
| We went thru this same exercise with EMC's Clarion 300 product last year. I
still put the op system on a local raid controller / hard drive subset and
then I put my data sets on the SANs unit. Biggest problem was the driver card
to the SANs unit. Once we had the proper software and hardware flashed, it
has been rock solid.
We went with a matched solution of the hardware, controller cards and
support. Between that, and making sure the Windows stuff all ran on a local
hard drive set, you should be fine.
# - I am in no way associated with EMC, I just administer it here.
Felis demulcta mitis ...
Alan G. Monaghan
[ MCSE+I - Win4.0/ MCSE - Win2k/ BJCP # C0389(Recognized) Ò¿Ó¬ ]
Systems Administrator
Gardner Publications, Inc.
*Phone ...... 1-513-527-8867
*Fax ........ 1-513-527-8801
*Cell ....... 1-513-378-0919
*E-mail ..... AlanM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*URL ........ http://Bullwinkle.GardnerWeb.Com/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:996
| | 12/12/2005 8:05 AM |
| You must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with
the HBAs from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large
lun™s to Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:50 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs on a SAN using
Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However, making sure you
follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using MSCS following
those best practices as well. Your server build consistency will
dictate the availability of your resources.
I would however hesitate when creating large
volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to manage. The key solution
would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then mount the SAN LUNs onto the
virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the volume as you see fit, but
it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system to manage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:40 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI
SAN Due Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in
the legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I
have made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we
should consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
| AD000001161
Posts:0
| | 12/12/2005 8:36 AM |
| You're right Brian, Volume Manager it is,that is my take on
presenting data over a SAN to Windows, from the Storage Management point of
view.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
DesmondSent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:03 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN
Due Diligence
You
must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with the HBAs
from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large lun's to
Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
Thanks,Brian
Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V
Contractor NASIC/SCNASent:
Monday, December 12, 2005 1:50 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs
on a SAN using Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However,
making sure you follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using
MSCS following those best practices as well. Your server build
consistency will dictate the availability of your
resources.
I would however hesitate
when creating large volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to
manage. The key solution would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then
mount the SAN LUNs onto the virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the
volume as you see fit, but it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system
to manage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Noah
EigerSent: Monday, December
12, 2005 1:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in the
legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I have
made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we should
consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
Do list
folks have any experiences or resources that might give me pause in following
through with this more expensive solution (vis-à-vis NAS, fiber SAN was never a
real option)? BTW: I am aware of the reservations about SATA drives and do not
mean to re-hash that discussion.
Thanks.
--
nme
--No
virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date:
12/12/2005 | | | |
| neiger@xxxx.yyy
| | 12/12/2005 9:19 AM |
| Thanks. Nathaniel, could you elaborate a bit on what you
mean by server build consistency, what constitutes a large
NTFS volume, and what you see as the management difficulties associated with
that large volume?
-- nme
From: Brian Desmond [mailto:brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
12:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
You must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with
the HBAs from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large
lun™s to Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:50 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs on a SAN using
Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However, making sure you
follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using MSCS following
those best practices as well. Your server build consistency will
dictate the availability of your resources.
I would however hesitate when creating large
volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to manage. The key solution
would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then mount the SAN LUNs onto the
virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the volume as you see fit, but
it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system to manage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:40 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI
SAN Due Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in the
legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I
have made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we
should consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
| AD000001161
Posts:0
| | 12/13/2005 4:19 AM |
| What I mean is following the best practices when building
your cluster servers that you will mount the LUNS from. We
had Microsoft here and we asked them how to manage volumes at the TB level, and
they told us to simply not create volumes that large because they will be
unmanageable. The NTFS file system is not made for large volumes as such,
thats why there is no solution to the management because that is not what it is
made for. Trying to defrag a TB of data is something that you do not want
to attempt. Our Unix folks always get a laugh because their filesystem has
not had the problem with fragmenting for 20 years, and Microsoft still has yet
to conquer that area. I tell them, that some things are just better suited
for different jobs, Unix is good for storage and storage management,
Windows is good a the presentation and authentication of that
storage.
Nate
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah
EigerSent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:35 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN
Due Diligence
Thanks. Nathaniel, could you elaborate a
bit on what you mean by "server build consistency," what constitutes a "large"
NTFS volume, and what you see as the management difficulties associated with
that large volume?
-- nme
From: Brian Desmond
[mailto:brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:03
PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
You
must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with the HBAs
from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large lun's to
Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
Thanks,Brian
Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V
Contractor NASIC/SCNASent:
Monday, December 12, 2005 1:50 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs
on a SAN using Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However,
making sure you follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using
MSCS following those best practices as well. Your server build
consistency will dictate the availability of your
resources.
I would however hesitate
when creating large volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to
manage. The key solution would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then
mount the SAN LUNs onto the virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the
volume as you see fit, but it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system
to manage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Noah
EigerSent: Monday, December
12, 2005 1:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN Due
Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in the
legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I have
made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we should
consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
Do list
folks have any experiences or resources that might give me pause in following
through with this more expensive solution (vis-à-vis NAS, fiber SAN was never a
real option)? BTW: I am aware of the reservations about SATA drives and do not
mean to re-hash that discussion.
Thanks.
--
nme
--No
virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date:
12/12/2005
--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release
Date: 12/12/2005
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release
Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:996
| | 12/13/2005 5:06 AM |
| I probably wouldn™t present a multi TB LUN myself. Think of the
restore time if you toasted that much data. 3 400GB (or 4 300GB or etc) mountpoints
is a better idea imho.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
11:16 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
What I mean is following the best practices when building
your cluster servers that you will mount the LUNS from. We
had Microsoft here and we asked them how to manage volumes at the TB level, and
they told us to simply not create volumes that large because they will be
unmanageable. The NTFS file system is not made for large volumes as such,
thats why there is no solution to the management because that is not what it is
made for. Trying to defrag a TB of data is something that you do not want
to attempt. Our Unix folks always get a laugh because their filesystem
has not had the problem with fragmenting for 20 years, and Microsoft still has
yet to conquer that area. I tell them, that some things are just better
suited for different jobs, Unix is good for storage and storage
management, Windows is good a the presentation and authentication of that
storage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
3:35 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
Thanks. Nathaniel, could you elaborate a bit on what you
mean by "server build consistency," what constitutes a
"large" NTFS volume, and what you see as the management difficulties
associated with that large volume?
-- nme
From: Brian Desmond
[mailto:brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
12:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
You must have meant Veritas Volume Damager. The software that comes with
the HBAs from EMC and Qlogic is both fine in my experience of presenting large
lun's to Exchange, SQL, and F & P clusters over FC at least.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c -
312.731.3132
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bahta Nathaniel V Contractor NASIC/SCNA
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:50 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT]
iSCSI SAN Due Diligence
I have never had a problem with seeing LUNs on a SAN using
Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 server. However, making sure you
follow the best practices for a fileserver and if you are using MSCS following
those best practices as well. Your server build consistency will
dictate the availability of your resources.
I would however hesitate when creating large
volumes on Windows platforms, they are hard to manage. The key solution
would be to load Veritas Storage Manager and then mount the SAN LUNs onto the
virtual volume, this would allow you to expand the volume as you see fit, but
it would not leave you with a giant NTFS file system to manage.
Nate
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
1:40 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] iSCSI SAN
Due Diligence
Hello:
I
realize the posting a message to a listserv probably does not count as DD in
the legal sense, but for my own peace of mind...
I
have made a strong and (apparently) convincing case to management that we
should consolidate our storage (file, Exchange, SQL, 90% Windows,
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005 | | | |
|
|