Defunct Drives Issue

We've been struggling with a problem for a while now. If anyone has has a
similiar issue, I'd appreciate it if you could share it here as it may lead
me to a solution... The Cluster houses SQL and IIS (bad I know, but it
shouldn't cause the problems we see)
We have the following Cluster hardware:
2 IBM x345 Servers
1 IBM ServeRAID 4MX (RAID 5)
Basically, whenever we have both machines connected to the cluster, at some
point (sometimes days, sometimes weeks) a failure will occur where the
Clustered drives (Data and Quorum) will become defunct. Bringing them back
online and restarting, etc works fine (but this takes a while and always
with risk).
I've been working with IBM for months now to try to troubleshoot this but
nothing has helped to make this a "highly available" environment.
From your description it looks like this is a SCSI cluster. Can you give a
complete description of the SCSI device as well as the physical(RAID) and
logical(LUN) disk layouts for the cluster. I have an idea where your
problem might be, but I need more information to be sure.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
"Joel" <joelmacaluso@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23qfT7o%23MFHA.4028@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> We've been struggling with a problem for a while now. If anyone has has a
> similiar issue, I'd appreciate it if you could share it here as it may
> lead me to a solution... The Cluster houses SQL and IIS (bad I know, but
> it shouldn't cause the problems we see)
> We have the following Cluster hardware:
> 2 IBM x345 Servers
> 1 IBM ServeRAID 4MX (RAID 5)
> Basically, whenever we have both machines connected to the cluster, at
> some point (sometimes days, sometimes weeks) a failure will occur where
> the Clustered drives (Data and Quorum) will become defunct. Bringing them
> back online and restarting, etc works fine (but this takes a while and
> always with risk).
> I've been working with IBM for months now to try to troubleshoot this but
> nothing has helped to make this a "highly available" environment.
>
|||Thanks Geoff,
Here's what I think you are looking for:
1.)Both servers are equipped with 2x18GB (Array A) mirrored. They are
connected to the internal channel of the IBM4MX SCSI. This is the logical C:
and D: drives.
The external Channel 1 of the Raid controller connects to the shared scsi.
2.)Array B = 2x18 GB mirrored = Q drive (Quorum) slots 13-14. (Physical
device is a shared IBM SCSI storage array)
3)Array C= 5x18 Raid 5 = S drive (Shared) slots 0-4 (Physical device is
shared IBM SCSI storage array)
Summarized:
LUNs= Q: and S: [Storage Array-Arrays B&C]
C: and D: internal Server [Array A]
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:uiCzd1ANFHA.2136@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> From your description it looks like this is a SCSI cluster. Can you give
> a complete description of the SCSI device as well as the physical(RAID)
> and logical(LUN) disk layouts for the cluster. I have an idea where your
> problem might be, but I need more information to be sure.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
>
> "Joel" <joelmacaluso@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23qfT7o%23MFHA.4028@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||Looks like there is a problem sharing a controller between the clustered
resource and the local disk resources. Make the vendor show you where this
is a certified cluster solution. I don't thing shared controllers is
supported.
Any way you slice it, you will get very poor performance from a SCSI storage
array in a clustered environment using RAID5 containers. Clustering
requires that the controllers operate in direct-write mode (no write cache)
so RAID5 is extremely slow.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
"Joel" <joelmacaluso@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Of$K0BHNFHA.244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Geoff,
> Here's what I think you are looking for:
> 1.)Both servers are equipped with 2x18GB (Array A) mirrored. They are
> connected to the internal channel of the IBM4MX SCSI. This is the logical
> C: and D: drives.
> The external Channel 1 of the Raid controller connects to the shared scsi.
> 2.)Array B = 2x18 GB mirrored = Q drive (Quorum) slots 13-14. (Physical
> device is a shared IBM SCSI storage array)
> 3)Array C= 5x18 Raid 5 = S drive (Shared) slots 0-4 (Physical device is
> shared IBM SCSI storage array)
> Summarized:
> LUNs= Q: and S: [Storage Array-Arrays B&C]
> C: and D: internal Server [Array A]
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:uiCzd1ANFHA.2136@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Xref: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering:17788
This looks identical in concept to HP prepackaged cluster setup that I am
using in an extremely similar fashion (Internal Mirrors are C: only). Have
not have any problems similar to that in 7 months of running.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezGgdnfNFHA.3512@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Looks like there is a problem sharing a controller between the clustered
> resource and the local disk resources. Make the vendor show you where
this
> is a certified cluster solution. I don't thing shared controllers is
> supported.
> Any way you slice it, you will get very poor performance from a SCSI
storage
> array in a clustered environment using RAID5 containers. Clustering
> requires that the controllers operate in direct-write mode (no write
cache)[vbcol=seagreen]
> so RAID5 is extremely slow.
>
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> "Joel" <joelmacaluso@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Of$K0BHNFHA.244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
logical[vbcol=seagreen]
scsi.[vbcol=seagreen]
give[vbcol=seagreen]
your[vbcol=seagreen]
has[vbcol=seagreen]
may[vbcol=seagreen]
where[vbcol=seagreen]
while
>

Defrag SQL Server

All
Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd on
a regular basis?
ThanksNot unless you overuse autogrow and shrink. OF the database files weren't fragmented when you
created then and if you only had a reasonable amount of grow operation per database file you
wouldn't have fragmented database files. Some info here as well:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David" <David@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B33CE701-AA9C-4AAC-ADBC-6E7AEEEB5645@.microsoft.com...
> All
> Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd on
> a regular basis?
> Thanks|||Hi David
To add to Tibor's comments. To defragment the disc you would need to stop
SQL Server if you are using the defragmenter supplied with windows, on many
production systems this is not an option. Products such as Diskkeeper can do
this while the server is running.
For a server dedicated to SQL Server you should not need to do this if the
initial file sizes are sufficient and you don't continually shrink the files.
Make sure that you have regular log backups to enable the log file to be
re-used and keep the log file size more constant.
If you are running SQL Server on (say) a development machine or
demonstration system, defragmenting can be very beneficial, I have seen
performance improvements of around 30% just by defragmenting the disc on such
systems.
John
"David" wrote:
> All
> Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd on
> a regular basis?
> Thanks

Defrag SQL Server

All
Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd on
a regular basis?
ThanksNot unless you overuse autogrow and shrink. OF the database files weren't fr
agmented when you
created then and if you only had a reasonable amount of grow operation per d
atabase file you
wouldn't have fragmented database files. Some info here as well:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David" <David@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B33CE701-AA9C-4AAC-ADBC-6E7AEEEB5645@.microsoft.com...
> All
> Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd
on
> a regular basis?
> Thanks|||Hi David
To add to Tibor's comments. To defragment the disc you would need to stop
SQL Server if you are using the defragmenter supplied with windows, on many
production systems this is not an option. Products such as Diskkeeper can do
this while the server is running.
For a server dedicated to SQL Server you should not need to do this if the
initial file sizes are sufficient and you don't continually shrink the files
.
Make sure that you have regular log backups to enable the log file to be
re-used and keep the log file size more constant.
If you are running SQL Server on (say) a development machine or
demonstration system, defragmenting can be very beneficial, I have seen
performance improvements of around 30% just by defragmenting the disc on suc
h
systems.
John
"David" wrote:

> All
> Should the drives where the SQL Server data and log files be defragmenetd
on
> a regular basis?
> Thanks

Defrag Sql Drives?

Is it OK to defrag drives with sql data/logs using the built in defrag in
W2K Server? Logs and data live on two separate hardware raid drives in the
same server.
MIt is usually not recommended while SQL Server is running but otherwise it
should be OK. Always do a full backup first.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Maureen" <nosend2me@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#PCzkZSFEHA.1512@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is it OK to defrag drives with sql data/logs using the built in defrag in
> W2K Server? Logs and data live on two separate hardware raid drives in the
> same server.
> M
>
>

Defrag needed ?

Hi,
Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
windows 2000 adv. server.
Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
the database files because i changed my backups to
different drive. Before placing the database files to
this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
Performance?
ThanksIf there is nothing on the partition it shouldn't matter. The OS wont care
if there was something there before as long as it's deleted for good you
should be all set.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"kris" <kpxus@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:032f01c36b40$6b042aa0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Env : SQLserver2000 Entr. (active/passive cluster)
> windows 2000 adv. server.
> Server has RAID10 setup for all the drives. I have used
> one partition X for the backups and i used to delete the
> older backups. right now i want to use this partition for
> the database files because i changed my backups to
> different drive. Before placing the database files to
> this drive X, Do i need to run any defrag utility? or
> windows defrag? . If i wont run anything and use this X
> drive for my database files , will it hurt SQL
> Performance?
> Thanks
>

Defrag local drive in SQL Server 2005

Are there any considerations that must be taken before defragging the local
drives in SQL Server 2005? For RAID and non-RAID drives?A backup would be nice first but other than that not really.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0DD0845-0609-4094-9A23-3DAEF22922B3@.microsoft.com...
> Are there any considerations that must be taken before defragging the
> local
> drives in SQL Server 2005? For RAID and non-RAID drives?|||Thanks...
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> A backup would be nice first but other than that not really.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0DD0845-0609-4094-9A23-3DAEF22922B3@.microsoft.com...
> > Are there any considerations that must be taken before defragging the
> > local
> > drives in SQL Server 2005? For RAID and non-RAID drives?
>
>|||morphius wrote:
> Are there any considerations that must be taken before defragging the local
> drives in SQL Server 2005? For RAID and non-RAID drives?
Be sure to shut down SQL Server, otherwise the data files will be locked
and won't be accessible to defrag. DisKeeper claims to defrag database
files without shutting down SQL, but I wouldn't be comfortable doing that.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com