|
Home > Archive > MS SQL Server > February 2006 > Sql 2005 on EMC celerra or clarion
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sql 2005 on EMC celerra or clarion
|
|
|
| Hi,
we have many DB that are sql2000. The hope is to unify them to one strong
server connected either by SAN to EMC clarion cx700 , or , thru NAS to the
same disks thru celerra ns702. In the process there will be an upgrade to sql
2005.
Has anyone done anything similar and can share experiance ?
Do you have links to relevant white papers since what I found is relevant
only to Netapp.
Thank you
| |
| Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) 2005-07-28, 9:23 am |
| Hi
NAS is not supported.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
SAN is, but direct attached SAN (SCSI, Fiber etc)
Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"AFrog" wrote:
> Hi,
> we have many DB that are sql2000. The hope is to unify them to one strong
> server connected either by SAN to EMC clarion cx700 , or , thru NAS to the
> same disks thru celerra ns702. In the process there will be an upgrade to sql
> 2005.
> Has anyone done anything similar and can share experiance ?
> Do you have links to relevant white papers since what I found is relevant
> only to Netapp.
> Thank you
| |
|
|
| Wojtek Garwol 2005-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| Hi,
Not only direct attached, iSCSI on LAN works as well. Set it up myself on
NetApp FAS.
Cheers
Wojtek
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:3AD7D842-6A53-49E1-A13E- 8B0826D3E0AC@microso
ft.com...[color=darkred]
> Hi
>
> NAS is not supported.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
>
> SAN is, but direct attached SAN (SCSI, Fiber etc)
>
> Regards
> --------------------------------
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
>
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
>
>
> "AFrog" wrote:
>
| |
|
| Hi,
Can you give me some technical details such as size of the databases and
transactions per time.
Did you do any performance comprisign with your former system?
Thanks for the answer.
Natan
"Wojtek Garwol" wrote:
> Hi,
> Not only direct attached, iSCSI on LAN works as well. Set it up myself on
> NetApp FAS.
>
> Cheers
> Wojtek
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:3AD7D842-6A53-49E1-A13E- 8B0826D3E0AC@microso
ft.com...
>
>
>
| |
| Wojtek Garwol 2005-07-30, 1:23 pm |
| Hi,
the data size is about 250 GB. Our system is of rather static nature,
definitely it is no classic OLTP. The typical wueries are reads by id with
joining 3 up to 6 big tables (each 50+ mln records).
However, I did performance comparison between our current setup
(DirectAttachedStora
ge, RAID5) and the new one (SAN via iSCSI through 1GB
LAN). The results were AFAIR 100% to 300% better, it was big improvement.
--
Cheers,
Wojtek
"AFrog" <AFrog@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43748CE5-244D-456D-A02D- E67E0C43FCD0@microso
ft.com...[color=darkred]
> Hi,
> Can you give me some technical details such as size of the databases and
> transactions per time.
> Did you do any performance comprisign with your former system?
> Thanks for the answer.
> Natan
>
> "Wojtek Garwol" wrote:
>
| |
| ScottR 2006-02-06, 8:23 pm |
| Hello, how did you split the drives for the improved performance?
Thanks,
Scottt
"Wojtek Garwol" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the data size is about 250 GB. Our system is of rather static nature,
> definitely it is no classic OLTP. The typical wueries are reads by id with
> joining 3 up to 6 big tables (each 50+ mln records).
>
> However, I did performance comparison between our current setup
> (DirectAttachedStora
ge, RAID5) and the new one (SAN via iSCSI through 1GB
> LAN). The results were AFAIR 100% to 300% better, it was big improvement.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Wojtek
>
>
> "AFrog" <AFrog@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43748CE5-244D-456D-A02D- E67E0C43FCD0@microso
ft.com...
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|