| Author |
Topic |
|
samII
Starting Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 2006-03-13 : 00:47:51
|
| hello all,i want to run a Sql Server cluster but store the files at a different location in the network. is it possible to configure a MS Sql Server 2000 cluster to have different physical location.if yes, how ?Thanx in advance |
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 02:24:21
|
| so, you want to the shared storage to be a network mounted filesystem? This isn't possible with clustering and undoubtedly would not be recommended even if it were technically possible. There is a registry change that you can make to allow SQL Server to use a network drive to store it's datafiles, but it does not work in a cluster environment. Here is the KB article on this change: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261-ec |
 |
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 02:29:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by eyechart
so, you want to the shared storage to be a network mounted filesystem? This isn't possible with clustering and undoubtedly would not be recommended even if it were technically possible. There is a registry change that you can make to allow SQL Server to use a network drive to store it's datafiles, but it does not work in a cluster environment. Here is the KB article on this change: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261
A little more research shows that iscsi is supported in MSCS on win2k3 sp1 and newer. If your NAS/SAN hardware supports iSCSI then you might be in business.http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/default.mspxI did not see that SQL was specifically supported in this configuration though.-ec |
|
|
|
samII
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 03:17:35
|
| Thanx ec for the replies.i went through the iSCSI link that u have provided and tried to do web research too on it but it could not find anything relevent. can you please point me to the right direction.sorry for being such a pain.. |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 03:30:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by samII
Thanx ec for the replies.i went through the iSCSI link that u have provided and tried to do web research too on it but it could not find anything relevent. can you please point me to the right direction.sorry for being such a pain..
what hardware are you using for your storage? We could start from that angle and see if iSCSI is even an option for you.-ec |
|
|
|
samII
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 06:32:23
|
| >what hardware are you using for your storage? We could start from that angle and see if iSCSI is even an option for you.the hardware is not decided upon yet.looking for the alternatives available. but aquiring hardware will not be a problem. the main problem is that we need a cluster of sql server running and then store the DB files at some other network location. will iSCSI provide this functionality ? |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 12:56:05
|
| Why wouldn't you stored the DB files on the SAN / DAS attached to the SQL Cluster? I'm pretty sure that you can not have the DB files located on a UNC share.What exactly are you trying to do or accomplish?Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. Cursors, path to the Dark Side they are. Avoid them, you must. Use Order By NewID() to get a random record you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-13 : 13:05:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by samII
>what hardware are you using for your storage? We could start from that angle and see if iSCSI is even an option for you.the hardware is not decided upon yet.looking for the alternatives available. but aquiring hardware will not be a problem. the main problem is that we need a cluster of sql server running and then store the DB files at some other network location. will iSCSI provide this functionality ?
iSCSI can do this, but the latency in a remote connection will no doubt make this scenario unworkable. There also may be some limitations in iSCSI that prevent this from working.What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? IF this is for DR then I see no advantage to splitting things up. Do you not have the capacity in your datacenter to have both the storage and the servers? enlighten us.-ec |
|
|
|
|
MS SQL server cluster: Physical Location Issue