Running SQL Server on a SAN?

Question

Running SQL Server on a SAN?

DBAhawk

SSC Enthusiast

Points: 187
More actions
June 22, 2006 at 12:56 pm

#168859

My company has recently purchased a SAN solution from BlueArc, and my boss wants us to run SQL Server on this instead of a traditional server.
Can it be done? What issues will I face? We'll be in touch with the vendor about this as well, of course but I'm looking for more than promises here.
Thanks, and be nice to me - this is my first post

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

K. Brian Kelley SSC Guru Points: 114642 More actions · Answer 1

Yes, it can be done as many of us do this. However, a cursory glance of the Windows Server Catalog and I don't see BlueArc listed as an approved cluster solution. That will limit the amount of support you can get from Microsoft if you run into issues as that's likely to be their first question.

As far as getting it set up, work with your SAN administrator to ensure proper RAID levels, the number of disk arrays, spindles, etc., just like you would for a normal server. Ensure you have redundancy in your connectivity to the SAN (multiple HBAs).

K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley

colin.Leversuch-Roberts SSC Guru Points: 52643 More actions · Answer 2

from experience the sort of issues you may face include poor performance!! and that everyone will blame sql server .

The common issues with sans are that the disks are normally set as raid 5 and then shared. This is one of the selling points of SAN's especially with the disk sizes these days. I'm not going to go into a discussion about storage architecture here but basically for sql server you require dedicated spindles, raid 10 and ample spindles. Of course what this tends to mean is lots of free disk space on your array. Just to name drop, I had a lunch meeting with Jim Gray and he acknowledged this was one of the biggest issues dba's had to face with storage - until the administrators of storage understand rdbms technology or come from a database instead of a systems background I think they'll always have this problem. The fact that the SAN has arrived presumably without any input from yourself proves my point < grin >

Once your san is in, most perfmon counters won't work - your critical ones are the disk i/o completion counters these will show performance.

[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/

K. Brian Kelley SSC Guru Points: 114642 More actions · Answer 3

And speaking as someone who sits on both sides of the fence in my organization, it's sometimes very hard for me to get strictly server guys to understand that the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 (10) is a significant one. If you encounter this problem, be prepared to go on an education campaign.

K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley

colin.Leversuch-Roberts SSC Guru Points: 52643 More actions · Answer 4

yeah -- but I have a possible answer - I've just had a run in with a system architect, who when challenged about GB vs spindles ( they wanted to put 50 small databases on 2 spindles as the capacity matched with 142gb disks ) said they'd get a storage consultant in to advise us !! OK .. so I'm going to put myself on some storage training - then let's see them argue !! < grin >

But seriously folks, I think DBA's are going to need to include SAN / storage training so we can get our views listened to .. still might not win all the battles but at least we'd perhaps get to put our point across from a stronger position. If you're in the US then I see Hitachi do a 5 day SAN boot camp - I realise the US is a large place so it might not be local, but might be worth considering.

[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/

Robert Davis One Orange Chip Points: 28027 More actions · Answer 5

Any suggestions on where to look first for the best practices for running SQL Server on a SAN?

Our old SA has left and our new SA has declared that everything the previous SA did with the SAN is wrong. I would like to know who's way is the right way ... if either.

My blog: SQL Soldier[/url]
SQL Server Best Practices: SQL Server Best Practices
Twitter: @SQLSoldier
My book: Pro SQL Server 2008 Mirroring[/url]
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, Data Platform MVP
Database Engineer at BlueMountain Capital Management[/url]

K. Brian Kelley SSC Guru Points: 114642 More actions · Answer 6

Here I gave some sources:

SSC Message Thread on Capacity Planning

K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley

Robert Davis One Orange Chip Points: 28027 More actions · Answer 7

Thanks!!!

My blog: SQL Soldier[/url]
SQL Server Best Practices: SQL Server Best Practices
Twitter: @SQLSoldier
My book: Pro SQL Server 2008 Mirroring[/url]
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, Data Platform MVP
Database Engineer at BlueMountain Capital Management[/url]

alen teplitsky SSC-Dedicated Points: 30014 More actions · Answer 8

in my experience the SAN guys just cut up the space to make their life easier and repeat things like the SAN has cache to make up for the shared spindles. If you can cut up the SAN space to give yourself dedicated spindles for the DB files you are going to get yourself a nice performance boost versus just cutting up the space depending on how much each server needs.