about SAN

Dear gurus,
We wish a good migration, faster and the less traumatic possible. So that
after five years with the same logical configuration, hardware and so on the
main point is to improve considerably the availability and drop once for all
our bottlenecks.
We’ve got an A-A cluster running with W2000k and Sql2000k. There are
approximately 50 databases and on paper and thinking in the upcoming change
s
we’ve created three logical groups according five variables: criticity,
usage, size, growing, volatility data
A: Critical
B: Medium usage
C: Historical data or database with little load.
Well, currently LDF are living along with NDF in the same volume.
Idea is moving to a SAN (fitted with faster disks) and isolating of course
all those LDF in separated volumes.
Probably there will be one controller with four channels and one though at
the moment is having in one channel the group A and the second channel group
B. Third channel will be reserved for LOG and the last one for the group C.
I don’t know if I my explanations has not been very clear. Let me know if
I
can provide you more relevant information.
How many thing must I take into account in this tricky migration?
Does anyone has ever experienced with former and similar plan?
Thanks in advance for any input or comment.
Regards,Hi Enric,
Seperating log files is a good starting point, also if you have high tempdb
usage consider to separate temp db as well. Also Raid 1 for log files and
Raid 10 (Raid 1 + 0) if possible if not Raid 5 is for Data files are ideal.
If you want to spread IO across your disks to prevent bottlenecks so LUN
configuration is very importnant and it really depends on your SAN
configuration. But we ususally use two methods:
1) Analyze data files usage using fn_virtualfilestats (see BOL for details)
and spread the data files across different LUNs, controllers etc. by moving
them (You have to analyze for all 50 db's you have.)
2) Creating the LUNS across multiple arrays to spread disk IO
As you can see it really depends on your SAN configuration and also your db
usage. You have to analyze well in the beginning becouse it's hard to change
to configuration later. And it really depends on your priorities
(performance, isolation of env., availability etc..)
And i also recomment you to upgrade Windows 2003 OS as well.
Regards.
"Enric" wrote:

> Dear gurus,
> We wish a good migration, faster and the less traumatic possible. So that
> after five years with the same logical configuration, hardware and so on t
he
> main point is to improve considerably the availability and drop once for a
ll
> our bottlenecks.
> We’ve got an A-A cluster running with W2000k and Sql2000k. There are
> approximately 50 databases and on paper and thinking in the upcoming chan
ges
> we’ve created three logical groups according five variables: criticity,
> usage, size, growing, volatility data
> A: Critical
> B: Medium usage
> C: Historical data or database with little load.
> Well, currently LDF are living along with NDF in the same volume.
> Idea is moving to a SAN (fitted with faster disks) and isolating of course
> all those LDF in separated volumes.
> Probably there will be one controller with four channels and one though at
> the moment is having in one channel the group A and the second channel gro
up
> B. Third channel will be reserved for LOG and the last one for the group C
.
> I don’t know if I my explanations has not been very clear. Let me know i
f I
> can provide you more relevant information.
> How many thing must I take into account in this tricky migration?
> Does anyone has ever experienced with former and similar plan?
> Thanks in advance for any input or comment.
> Regards,
>|||http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...ver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Enric" <Enric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A763B6DC-6130-43F0-B153-78CC5301E8CC@.microsoft.com...
> Dear gurus,
> We wish a good migration, faster and the less traumatic possible. So that
> after five years with the same logical configuration, hardware and so on t
he
> main point is to improve considerably the availability and drop once for a
ll
> our bottlenecks.
> We’ve got an A-A cluster running with W2000k and Sql2000k. There are
> approximately 50 databases and on paper and thinking in the upcoming chan
ges
> we’ve created three logical groups according five variables: criticity,
> usage, size, growing, volatility data
> A: Critical
> B: Medium usage
> C: Historical data or database with little load.
> Well, currently LDF are living along with NDF in the same volume.
> Idea is moving to a SAN (fitted with faster disks) and isolating of course
> all those LDF in separated volumes.
> Probably there will be one controller with four channels and one though at
> the moment is having in one channel the group A and the second channel gro
up
> B. Third channel will be reserved for LOG and the last one for the group C
.
> I don’t know if I my explanations has not been very clear. Let me know i
f I
> can provide you more relevant information.
> How many thing must I take into account in this tricky migration?
> Does anyone has ever experienced with former and similar plan?
> Thanks in advance for any input or comment.
> Regards,
>|||Thanks a lot for your comments,
"Umut Nazlica" wrote:
> Hi Enric,
> Seperating log files is a good starting point, also if you have high tempd
b
> usage consider to separate temp db as well. Also Raid 1 for log files and
> Raid 10 (Raid 1 + 0) if possible if not Raid 5 is for Data files are ideal
.
> If you want to spread IO across your disks to prevent bottlenecks so LUN
> configuration is very importnant and it really depends on your SAN
> configuration. But we ususally use two methods:
> 1) Analyze data files usage using fn_virtualfilestats (see BOL for details
)
> and spread the data files across different LUNs, controllers etc. by movin
g
> them (You have to analyze for all 50 db's you have.)
> 2) Creating the LUNS across multiple arrays to spread disk IO
> As you can see it really depends on your SAN configuration and also your d
b
> usage. You have to analyze well in the beginning becouse it's hard to chan
ge
> to configuration later. And it really depends on your priorities
> (performance, isolation of env., availability etc..)
> And i also recomment you to upgrade Windows 2003 OS as well.
> Regards.
> "Enric" wrote:
>