Looking for suggestions on specs

Hello,
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement. As
for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
logs on RAID10.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Hello,
We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
good specs drawn out.
SAN has 3 arrays
SQL Group has the following resources:
Network name
IP Address
physical disks for data (RAID 5)
physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
Cluster Group has the following resources:
Network Name
IP Address
physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
MS DTC resource
Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Jake
|||Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same group
that share the same physical disk?
Jake
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If you can avoid RAID5 and go with RAID10, that would be an improvement.
> As
> for logs, if you have just one DB, then RAID1 is likely sufficient.
> However, if you have many DB's with update activity, consider putting the
> logs on RAID10.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:ecIngdRCHHA.144@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> We are wanting to setup a sql2k5 std cluster and are curious if we have
> good specs drawn out.
> SAN has 3 arrays
> SQL Group has the following resources:
> Network name
> IP Address
> physical disks for data (RAID 5)
> physical disk for logs (RAID 1)
> Cluster Group has the following resources:
> Network Name
> IP Address
> physical disk for quorum (RAID 1)
> MS DTC resource
>
> Is this a valid setup or a better suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> Jake
>
|||As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit as
much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
Example:
if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
completely.
In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and create
a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
anything in the cluster group.
As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
cluster for DTC purposes.
... my two cents ...
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> It depends. ;-) If you use a lot of distributed transactions, consider
> putting the DTC on its own disk. If you use little or no distributed
> transactions, then you can put it on the same disk as the quorum.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:Oqqz4jRCHHA.3916@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tom,
> Thanks for the reply. I was curious if I have my cluster groups setup
> correctly. Is it ok to have the quorum and the MS DTC within the same
group[vbcol=seagreen]
> that share the same physical disk?
> Jake
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:um4CsgRCHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
have
>
|||Guys,
Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question, hopefully
, in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively small
size (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
reading. Thanks again for the input.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
> In my opinion I would leave the cluster group the cluster group, and
> create
> a seperate group with an IP, NetName, Disk(small) and DTC. This can then
> move independently from your cluster group, and in case the DTC has
> problems, you are able to work and troubleshoot this without effecting
> anything in the cluster group.
> As you are in a SAN, it should be possible to present a small disk to this
> cluster for DTC purposes.
> ... my two cents ...
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23QFj1oRCHHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> group
> the
> have
>
|||"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As a best practice I never put DTC in the Cluster Group (and therefore not
> on the quorum disk), my logic is that when you cluster, you want to omit
> as
> much as possible anything which can terminate the cluster.
I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC is
pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that can
cause you to run out of drive letters.
Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.

> Example:
> if for some odd reason the DTC fails, this immediately prompt the Cluster
> Group to move nodes. If again for some odd reason the DTC fails to com
> online on the other node, you might run the risk of loosing your cluster
> completely.
Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
goes away.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
|||Jake,
Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see KB
280345
That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with 500MB
I have never seen any problems !
I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Guys,
> Thanks for the input I truly appreciate it. One last question,
hopefully[vbcol=seagreen]
> , in the documentation I see that the quorum can be a relatively small
> size (something like 50 MB) what is your recommendation? I am assuming you
> guys have had a box in production so you'd know better than the docs I am
> reading. Thanks again for the input.
>
> Jake
>
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not[vbcol=seagreen]
Cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
consider[vbcol=seagreen]
setup
>
|||Edwin,
Thanks.
Jake
"Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23yfvWgZCHHA.3540@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jake,
> Microsoft still (since a long time) recommends 500MB for its quorum, see
> KB
> 280345
> That recommendation might be larger than actually needed, however with
> 500MB
> I have never seen any problems !
> I have alway deployed a quorum disk of 500MB minimum.
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
>
> "Jake Smythe" <someone@.ms.com> wrote in message
> news:OVgH1KZCHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> hopefully
> not
> Cluster
> this
> consider
> setup
>
|||Russ,
I have considered all that before I posted, and must say you are absolutely
right, and KB 301600 details the microsft view on this.
Where on one hand they say "leave it in the cluster group" and in the same
article they say "create a sepereate group".
For drive letters, and the "cost" of a small disk, I think each should look
at their own config of SAN and cluster to determine if an additional disk is
feasible.
Then again... if you likely to run out of drive-letters, you might be
pushing a solution with mountpoints already.
In regards to disabling the "affect group" property, you should always do
that if you add the MSDTC into cluster group, however I have seen people
forget this, or even admins who noticed this disabled and enabled it,
because they did not understand the purpose of disabling.
in my opinion, a seperate group for MSDTC will never jeaporadise resources
in the cluster group, while MSDTC in the cluster group might (in some
circumstances)... its about minimising risk... and uptime !
Rgds,
Edwin.
"Russ Kaufmann" <russ@.clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:OpK7UNZCHHA.468@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Edwin vMierlo" <EdwinvMierlo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eFSfboWCHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
not
> I agree with this to a point. However, the cost of the disk for the MSDTC
is
> pretty high when you consider other applications in larger clusters that
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> cause you to run out of drive letters.
> Also, it is wasted resources in my opinion if it isn't ever used.
> Since the Cluster team has extensively tested MSDTC in the default cluster
> group and have given it their blessing, I don't see any need for it having
> its own resources. Except, when the application uses it heavily.
Cluster
> Set the Affect Group to disabled for the MSDTC resource and that concern
> goes away.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
>