Cluster Switch Hardware

New to clustering and wanted to know if anyone had any hardware suggestions
with regard to the dedicated switch for the heartbeat network.
Initially this will be a 2 node Active/Active cluster hosting SQL Server
connected to a SAN. I do expect to add at least another set of clustered
hosts or two before year's end.
We typically use all Cisco equipment.
Suggestions?
"john d" <johnd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9FCFA8C-13FB-4A7C-9E88-9573BEF9C047@.microsoft.com...
> New to clustering and wanted to know if anyone had any hardware
> suggestions
> with regard to the dedicated switch for the heartbeat network.
Anything will work for you. I, personally, prefer dumb hubs. That way Bucky
can misconfigure it and hose up my heartbeat network.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th
|||I agree with Russ. The bandwith requirements for the heartbeat are really
low. I wish I could get some old co-ax NICS and just run a single cable
instead of an active device.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:erF4iczOHHA.4280@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "john d" <johnd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D9FCFA8C-13FB-4A7C-9E88-9573BEF9C047@.microsoft.com...
> Anything will work for you. I, personally, prefer dumb hubs. That way
> Bucky can misconfigure it and hose up my heartbeat network.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
> The next ClusterHelp classes are:
> Denver starting Feb 12th
> NYC starting Feb 19th
>
|||Geoff/Russ - Thanks for your input. Glad I didn't already go out and buy a
switch.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> I agree with Russ. The bandwith requirements for the heartbeat are really
> low. I wish I could get some old co-ax NICS and just run a single cable
> instead of an active device.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
> news:erF4iczOHHA.4280@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
|||For a 2-node system, we typically use just a network cross-over cable. If
you expand this cluster for additional nodes, the heartbeat uses multi-cast
to communicate (Win2K3); so, you will definitely want to isolate this
network from the others, either by constructing a physical interconnect
between the servers or through a larger corporate switch interconnect and
the use of VLANs.
Regardless, unless you also duplicate the hardware, this network will also
represent a Single Point of Failure. If you are unfamiliar with this term,
you should learn it. It is the single most important concept with regards
to Highly Available systems.
In this case, you must provide multiple network paths between the servers.
In addition to the dedicated heartbeat network, we typically allow the
public network to also transport cluster heartbeat communications. In
Cluster Administrator, on the cluster object, you can specify the network
priority for cluster communications, but also include the secondary network
as a fail-safe.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"john d" <johnd@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC09A8BC-4126-4002-B526-401B90D2A1DB@.microsoft.com...
> Geoff/Russ - Thanks for your input. Glad I didn't already go out and buy
a[vbcol=seagreen]
> switch.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
really[vbcol=seagreen]

Cluster solution certification

Hi All,
We are currently working on setting up a 2-Node cluster using SQL Server
2005.
Hardware :
HP Blade servers : BL 460c (c7000 enclosure)
SAN from Compellent Technologies
Fiber channel network.
OS : Windows Server 2003.
My understanding is that this cluster solution (as a whole not individual
components)needs to be certified by Microsoft in order to get support from
them in the future.
I checked the microsoft site www.windowsservercatalog.com but couldn;t find
the entire system as a whole for the above combination. There were other
combinations of SAN from Compellent and Proliant servers from HP.
I spoke to Compellent, and they directed me to the "wondowsservercatalog"
site.
I'm trying to get hold of someone from HP who can help me with this ,so far
no success.
Does anyone of you use the above platform for Clustering without any issues.
If so, for how long?
I appreciate your input.
SJ
Blade cluster = Low Availability Cluster, regardless of the certification.
Blades share too many critical components (Power Supplies, inbuilt network
switches, etc.) for me to count them as truly redundant solutions. Some
blade systems are less "interdependent" than others, but when you are trying
for both hardware redundancy (Clustering) AND lower cost through combined
hardware (blade platform), something has to give.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SJ" <SJ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C314632E-B342-45E7-86F8-CB0F8F1DD230@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> We are currently working on setting up a 2-Node cluster using SQL Server
> 2005.
> Hardware :
> HP Blade servers : BL 460c (c7000 enclosure)
> SAN from Compellent Technologies
> Fiber channel network.
> OS : Windows Server 2003.
> My understanding is that this cluster solution (as a whole not individual
> components)needs to be certified by Microsoft in order to get support from
> them in the future.
> I checked the microsoft site www.windowsservercatalog.com but couldn;t
> find
> the entire system as a whole for the above combination. There were other
> combinations of SAN from Compellent and Proliant servers from HP.
> I spoke to Compellent, and they directed me to the "wondowsservercatalog"
> site.
> I'm trying to get hold of someone from HP who can help me with this ,so
> far
> no success.
> Does anyone of you use the above platform for Clustering without any
> issues.
> If so, for how long?
> I appreciate your input.
>
> --
> SJ

Cluster Hardware recommendation

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.
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.
>
>

cluster hardware - CPU, memory

1. In MSCS and SQL Server 2-node clustering on windows 2000 advance server,
are there any restrictions on the hardware. That is, do the 2 nodes
necessarily should have the same number of CPU and memory?
2. when we have 2 node with sql server in cluster, can we install another
non-clustered instance on the same server?
3. is there a link which describes the difference between 1 sql instance
cluster and 2 sql instance cluster?
1). Certified cluster configurations must be symmetrical. That is all
nodes indentical. It is possible to run asymmetrical clusters, but they are
often more trouble and less reliable than a stand-alone SQL instance.
2). Yes.
3). The Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit has some good information on
clustering, including using more than 2 nodes and multi-instance support.
BOL also has some basic information.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2E64C5E8-A0BB-41AB-8174-FF26137A1F17@.microsoft.com...
> 1. In MSCS and SQL Server 2-node clustering on windows 2000 advance
> server,
> are there any restrictions on the hardware. That is, do the 2 nodes
> necessarily should have the same number of CPU and memory?
> 2. when we have 2 node with sql server in cluster, can we install another
> non-clustered instance on the same server?
> 3. is there a link which describes the difference between 1 sql instance
> cluster and 2 sql instance cluster?
sqlsql

cluster

Hello ,
I have couple of questions on clustering as well as on hardware.
1) Is the license for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition ( Production) on
active/active and active/passive is same?
2) Is the license for sql server 2005 is socket based or processor based, is
there any differnce between them.
3) Do we have any figures for SQL Server 2005 performance on single socket
as well as dual socket servers ?
4) If we have a active/active cluster on single socket on quad core
processor , what will be the license as well as performance when compared to
the active/active on dual socket on quad processor?
Any input is appreciated?
Comments Inline
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87B5B6CB-413D-4A12-A4D3-59CDAC0C569A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello ,
> I have couple of questions on clustering as well as on hardware.
> 1) Is the license for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition ( Production) on
> active/active and active/passive is same?
Sort of. There is a single-instance or N+1 exception to normal licensing
requirements. If you have a node that is always a standby system, Then it
doesn't have to be licensed for SQL. Two nodes, one instance, one license.
Four nodes, three instances, three licenses.
Also, on two-node clusters, you might look into Standard Edition for
clustering. It's lots cheaper and it does support two-node clusters.

> 2) Is the license for sql server 2005 is socket based or processor based,
> is
> there any differnce between them.
Socket-based. This makes dual and quad core systems very price competitive
from a licensing standpoint.

> 3) Do we have any figures for SQL Server 2005 performance on single socket
> as well as dual socket servers ?
I generally don't trust benchmarks all that much. With SQL, the nature of
the load can vary so much between systems that finding a matching benchmark
is difficult if not impossible. Dual and quad socket systems are commodity
priced so I wouldn't go with a single-socket system except for the very
lowest application. Certainly not for a cluster.

> 4) If we have a active/active cluster on single socket on quad core
> processor , what will be the license as well as performance when compared
> to
> the active/active on dual socket on quad processor?
>
Assuming per-socket licensing, you would need one socket license for the
first and four licenses for the second. CAL licensing (assuming the usage
meets the requirements) would be one server license and N CALS for the first
or two server licenses and N CALs for the second. N being the number of
client users or devices.

> Any input is appreciated?
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks that was helpful....
Is there any KB or white paper describing the same for some documentation...
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Comments Inline
> "IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:87B5B6CB-413D-4A12-A4D3-59CDAC0C569A@.microsoft.com...
> Sort of. There is a single-instance or N+1 exception to normal licensing
> requirements. If you have a node that is always a standby system, Then it
> doesn't have to be licensed for SQL. Two nodes, one instance, one license.
> Four nodes, three instances, three licenses.
> Also, on two-node clusters, you might look into Standard Edition for
> clustering. It's lots cheaper and it does support two-node clusters.
> Socket-based. This makes dual and quad core systems very price competitive
> from a licensing standpoint.
> I generally don't trust benchmarks all that much. With SQL, the nature of
> the load can vary so much between systems that finding a matching benchmark
> is difficult if not impossible. Dual and quad socket systems are commodity
> priced so I wouldn't go with a single-socket system except for the very
> lowest application. Certainly not for a cluster.
> Assuming per-socket licensing, you would need one socket license for the
> first and four licenses for the second. CAL licensing (assuming the usage
> meets the requirements) would be one server license and N CALS for the first
> or two server licenses and N CALs for the second. N being the number of
> client users or devices.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
|||Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EXE
The links to the white paper and FAQ are very useful
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8848E76E-646D-4AA9-B7FD-7FCCA6D5DAFE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks that was helpful....
> Is there any KB or white paper describing the same for some
> documentation...
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: