November 9, 2015 at 12:06 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item How to Add a Drive as a Clustered Physical Disk Resource in Windows
Regards,Ganapathi varma, MCSAEmail: gana20m@gmail.com
November 9, 2015 at 5:30 am
I hate it when people give an article 1 star without saying why. It gives no one the chance to improve or avoid. Incredibly, I've never had to do this because I've always worked with a Windows/Infrastructue Group so I can only say that it looks like a correct step-by-step procedure.
So, to all of you "one star cowards" that grade with no explanation, what's wrong with this article?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2015 at 7:39 am
The display of the images are horrible. Can't follow along.
November 9, 2015 at 10:41 am
No one deserves 1 star so I gave 2. Why?
* windows 2003 is obsolete - in my opinion you should document the steps for 2008+
* you format the partition with the defaults. In windows 2003 you should use diskpart to align the partition to a 64K boundary for performance reasons. Win2008 does it automatically
* also if you format the disk for sql you should use 64K block size, again for better performance
* since you're using win 2003 you should talk about the fact that if you later want to modify the clustered resource you need to bring SQL offline. Not so with win 2008 where you can add/remove disks on the fly (assuming you're not messing around with disks that still have active db files on them)
* it may be interesting to also discuss the permissions for SQL if you have an instance installed and need to add a second disk. Since SQL is already installed the permissions will not be set automatically and you need to set ntfs permissions manually or you'll get access denied when creating a db on that new disk
Hope that clarifies my rating of 2 and hope it helps in writing future articles. Don't let the rating bring you down. Keep it up and maybe one day we'll be buying your book in a store 🙂
Chrz
Thierry
November 9, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Hollyz (11/9/2015)
The display of the images are horrible. Can't follow along.
I got the same impression on my screen.
November 9, 2015 at 4:39 pm
Now we're talking. Thanks for posting some feedback, folks!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Thank you guy's for the feedback ??
Regards,Ganapathi varma, MCSAEmail: gana20m@gmail.com
November 10, 2015 at 6:56 am
Yeah, the glaring omission is the Allocation Unit Size of 64k. I've seen this missed in far too many environments.
______________________________________________________________________
Personal Motto: Why push the envelope when you can just open it?
If you follow the direction given HERE[/url] you'll likely increase the number and quality of responses you get to your question.
Jason L. SelburgViewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply