I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of data.
It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage unit
(is this feasable?).
Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
Thanks - Jules.
Use the information found here -
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/cat...2-032dcb893c8b
Chuck Timon, Jr.
Microsoft Corporation
CCS Beta Engineer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||What sort of performance are you needing? If you need any kind of
performance considerations from this cluster, then I would not recommend the
AX100, and would recommend using a CX500 instead. Sure the CX500 costs
more, but you'll get more speed and reliability from it.
The AX100 is great for storage, and is a great backup to disk solution, but
for a SQL cluster, even though it could do it, would not do it well.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||If you consider the EMC Symmetrix DMX or HP Storage Solutions, the backup
snap-copy disks are installed within the same cabinet for local backups and
both support remote mirroring solutions. The Clariion does not.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
news:eHInBRd2FHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What sort of performance are you needing? If you need any kind of
> performance considerations from this cluster, then I would not recommend
the
> AX100, and would recommend using a CX500 instead. Sure the CX500 costs
> more, but you'll get more speed and reliability from it.
> The AX100 is great for storage, and is a great backup to disk solution,
but[vbcol=seagreen]
> for a SQL cluster, even though it could do it, would not do it well.
>
> Eric Bursley
> eric at bursley dot net
> Microsoft MVP
> RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
> GPG Signature:
> Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
>
> "Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL?).[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
storage[vbcol=seagreen]
and
>
|||I beg to differ. The Clariion support snapview which is a copy of first
write backup, and full cloning within the array. Very similar to the BCV's
that a Symmetrix has. In addition to that, the Clariion supports
mirrorview, sancopy, and mirrorview/A, which allows for replication between
multiple arrays. While a Symmetrix can do all of that an more, it will also
cost you a lot more as well.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%237qoZxi2FHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you consider the EMC Symmetrix DMX or HP Storage Solutions, the backup
> snap-copy disks are installed within the same cabinet for local backups
> and
> both support remote mirroring solutions. The Clariion does not.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
> news:eHInBRd2FHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> the
> but
> 2000)
> I
> SQL?).
> some
> to
> storage
> and
>
|||So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced or
stretch mirroring?
Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance, and
reduced latency, that your environment requires.
Anthony Thomas
"Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
news:eBCbguo2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I beg to differ. The Clariion support snapview which is a copy of first
> write backup, and full cloning within the array. Very similar to the
BCV's
> that a Symmetrix has. In addition to that, the Clariion supports
> mirrorview, sancopy, and mirrorview/A, which allows for replication
between
> multiple arrays. While a Symmetrix can do all of that an more, it will
also[vbcol=seagreen]
> cost you a lot more as well.
>
> Eric Bursley
> eric at bursley dot net
> Microsoft MVP
> RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
> GPG Signature:
> Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
>
>
> "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%237qoZxi2FHA.2268@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
backup[vbcol=seagreen]
recommend[vbcol=seagreen]
web[vbcol=seagreen]
servers.[vbcol=seagreen]
growing[vbcol=seagreen]
of
>
|||Anthony Thomas wrote:
> So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
> If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced or
> stretch mirroring?
> Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
> would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
> other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance, and
> reduced latency, that your environment requires.
>
Clariion does support distance/stretched mirroring via Mirrorview.
MirrorView and MirrorView/A are similar to SRDF/S and SRDF/A
respectively. I don't believe Clariion has an Adaptive Copy equivilant,
but I'm not sure about that. As far as distance and latency, you
basically have the same set of obstacles to overcome with SRDF as you do
with MirrorView. Also, like the Symmetrix line, Clariions support
consistency groups.
Jon
|||With Sancopy / mirrorview / mirrorview/A, the Clariion is able to replicate
any distance the Symmetric can because the technology is control by FC-IP
routers, which transport FC over IP over any distance. I have assisted with
a Washington - Atlanta full sync mirror view connections, as well as New
York to LA. McData fibre channel IP routers handled the connections.
While the terms may be different, the technology is very similar. The only
real difference between the Symmetric and the Clariion is the Symmetric has
active / active FC ports, and the Clariion uses Active / Passive ports.
Eric Bursley
eric at bursley dot net
Microsoft MVP
RHCE, MCSE, BCFP, EEIE-CS, ESCE-CS
GPG Signature:
Key fingerprint = CEAE CF3A 3876 7ECE 9DA7 946F DA9F DDCA C392 6DCB
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OzzYOQv2FHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> So, the Clariion CX series will support Adaptive Copy, RDF/S and RDF/A?
> If not, will the sancopy, mirrorview, and mirrorview/A support distanced
> or
> stretch mirroring?
> Again, if not, are we talking about degrees of distance, in which case it
> would depend on this user's requirement of geographical separation? In
> other words, you might have to go with the SYM DMX to get the distance,
> and
> reduced latency, that your environment requires.
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Eric Bursley [MVP]" <ebursley at swbell dot net> wrote in message
> news:eBCbguo2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> BCV's
> between
> also
> backup
> recommend
> web
> servers.
> growing
> of
>
|||If you really need to expand the SAN up to 10GB, then you should have to
select at least CX300 or CX300i. The reasons are:
1. AX100/i does not support cascading storage.
2. By cascading up to 4 x CX300, you can have up to around 19GB for storage
space.
3. You still need a growth buffer, right?
For iSCSI, I consider that will not be a bad choice unless you have to
consider the performance difference between Gigabit Ethernet and 2GB FC.
However, in terms of unifying your network equipment to pure IP based, it
may be a good choice.
To choose between CX300/500, the only factor I consider is the total storage
size, since that the performance factor does not generate noticible
difference to me.
Considering iSCSI, I have implemented iSCSI-SQL server cluster solution for
testing and for customer production environment for few time already and
found no particular problem. The art is the OS and SQL level fine tuning,
instead of iSCSI. iSCSI itself, even using Microsoft iSCSI initiator, is a
very stable as I experienced.
"Jules" <jules_espere11@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzIlQ0U2FHA.892@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of
> data. It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage
> unit (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
|||Going from the EMC AX series to the CX series is a big price jump. Try this
Cluster Solution built on iSCSI.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/cat...Han d&scope=1
Unless you have an unlimted IT budget
"Jules" wrote:
> Hello,
> I currently have 4 web servers (Windows 2003) and 4 sql servers (SQL 2000)
> and would like to consolidate these into an entry level SAN. As the web
> servers are running the same IIS based applications, i'd like to cluster
> these to use the centralised storage and likewise with the SQL servers. I
> was thinking of something like a Dell/EMC AX100 solution or maybe the
> AX-100i (although is iSCSI a reliable option for clustering IIS or SQL?).
> Would people agree that this would be the way to go or would there be some
> other recommendations? Storage use at the moment is around 3TB growing to
> around 10TB in the next 3 years. What about backups for this amount of data.
> It would be good to have the data mirrored across to another storage unit
> (is this feasable?).
> Any help or advice with this matter is appreciated as i'm new to SANs and
> any recommended intoroductory reading would be great.
> Thanks - Jules.
>
>
