| Author |
Message |
Tim Munro
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of these
virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff traffic
are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to dynamically
expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Brian Desmond [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
Tim,
At a high level, this is fine. Running active/active here is a good use of
available resources. Just make sure you have enough network throughput to
each machine to support both of them if need be.
My only concern with those LUN sizes is SLA. What if something happens to
that 1T lun. How are you going to restore that from tape in any reasonable
amount of time?
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of these
virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Munro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
Brian,
Thanks for your input. When in production, each node will be Gigabit
connected directly to a router so thoughput shouldn't be an issue in the
event of a failure. As for the 1TB LUN, only about 300GB will be in use at
the outset, the rest is for growth. Your concerns, however, have not fallen
on deaf ears and such considerations will be discussed internally.
The LUNs are RAID-5 on a brand new EMC SAN.
--
Tim.
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:Oo96nL$0FHA.3756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Tim,
At a high level, this is fine. Running active/active here is a good use of
available resources. Just make sure you have enough network throughput to
each machine to support both of them if need be.
My only concern with those LUN sizes is SLA. What if something happens to
that 1T lun. How are you going to restore that from tape in any reasonable
amount of time?
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
That is 100% correct and will be for a very long time to come.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
| Quote: | Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ahmad Muhsin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of these
virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
I'm a little concerned about your mention of AD...please note that you
should NOT cluster AD Domain Controllers...
As for the volumes, your performance will greatly depend on the number of
spindles that each LUN is created from and the distribution of the disks
across the DAEs, as well as your choice of SATA or FC drives...
--
Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP
"A troubleshooter's best tool is the Event Viewer and understanding the
events and messages contained therein."
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:OsxTg%23$0FHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Brian,
Thanks for your input. When in production, each node will be Gigabit
connected directly to a router so thoughput shouldn't be an issue in the
event of a failure. As for the 1TB LUN, only about 300GB will be in use at
the outset, the rest is for growth. Your concerns, however, have not
fallen on deaf ears and such considerations will be discussed internally.
The LUNs are RAID-5 on a brand new EMC SAN.
--
Tim.
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:Oo96nL$0FHA.3756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Tim,
At a high level, this is fine. Running active/active here is a good use
of available resources. Just make sure you have enough network throughput
to each machine to support both of them if need be.
My only concern with those LUN sizes is SLA. What if something happens to
that 1T lun. How are you going to restore that from tape in any
reasonable amount of time?
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Munro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
This cluster is NOT for AD DCs, just a file service.
0.5TB is a 4+1 RAID-5
1.0TB is a 8+1 RAID-5
All are Fibre Channel 143 GB disks.
--
Tim.
"Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" <ryan@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%23zAjO4A1FHA.984@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I'm a little concerned about your mention of AD...please note that you
should NOT cluster AD Domain Controllers...
As for the volumes, your performance will greatly depend on the number of
spindles that each LUN is created from and the distribution of the disks
across the DAEs, as well as your choice of SATA or FC drives...
--
Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP
"A troubleshooter's best tool is the Event Viewer and understanding the
events and messages contained therein."
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:OsxTg%23$0FHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Brian,
Thanks for your input. When in production, each node will be Gigabit
connected directly to a router so thoughput shouldn't be an issue in the
event of a failure. As for the 1TB LUN, only about 300GB will be in use
at the outset, the rest is for growth. Your concerns, however, have not
fallen on deaf ears and such considerations will be discussed internally.
The LUNs are RAID-5 on a brand new EMC SAN.
--
Tim.
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:Oo96nL$0FHA.3756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Tim,
At a high level, this is fine. Running active/active here is a good use
of available resources. Just make sure you have enough network
throughput to each machine to support both of them if need be.
My only concern with those LUN sizes is SLA. What if something happens
to that 1T lun. How are you going to restore that from tape in any
reasonable amount of time?
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster
for file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk,
and one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each
of these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Desmond [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:51 am Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
You can use something like Veritas Volume Damager to do the expansion. I
suspect htere are other products out there. I can attest that the expansion
works in Storage Foundations (aka Volume Manager), but, can't recommend it
in general (or any of Veritas HA stuff).
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
| Quote: | Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk, and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Munro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
Wow, that's quite the procedure. Thanks for the link. I knew about the
requirement for Basic (MBR) formatted disks for clusters. As long as the new
space was "directly adjacent" to the existing space, it was my understanding
that diskpart would do the trick. Is this true?
Thank you all for your input so far. It's been very helpful
--
Tim.
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O%23kE8yK1FHA.984@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | EMC storage can be dynamically expanded in the array, an then you can use
diskpart.exe to expand the filesystem. See the following for more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263590
Regards,
John
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:uG2ju6H1FHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You can use something like Veritas Volume Damager to do the expansion. I
suspect htere are other products out there. I can attest that the
expansion
works in Storage Foundations (aka Volume Manager), but, can't recommend
it
in general (or any of Veritas HA stuff).
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft
cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster
for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk,
and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported?
recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Toner [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
EMC storage can be dynamically expanded in the array, an then you can use
diskpart.exe to expand the filesystem. See the following for more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263590
Regards,
John
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:uG2ju6H1FHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | You can use something like Veritas Volume Damager to do the expansion. I
suspect htere are other products out there. I can attest that the
expansion
works in Storage Foundations (aka Volume Manager), but, can't recommend it
in general (or any of Veritas HA stuff).
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft
cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster
for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk,
and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported? recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Toner [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
As long as disk management is showing a basic disk with available
unallocated space after the partition, it should work fine.
Regards,
John
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:eH0LxLM1FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Wow, that's quite the procedure. Thanks for the link. I knew about the
requirement for Basic (MBR) formatted disks for clusters. As long as the
new
space was "directly adjacent" to the existing space, it was my
understanding
that diskpart would do the trick. Is this true?
Thank you all for your input so far. It's been very helpful
--
Tim.
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O%23kE8yK1FHA.984@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
EMC storage can be dynamically expanded in the array, an then you can
use
diskpart.exe to expand the filesystem. See the following for more
details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263590
Regards,
John
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:uG2ju6H1FHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You can use something like Veritas Volume Damager to do the expansion.
I
suspect htere are other products out there. I can attest that the
expansion
works in Storage Foundations (aka Volume Manager), but, can't recommend
it
in general (or any of Veritas HA stuff).
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft
cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory) cluster
for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB disk,
and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported?
recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Munro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Cluster configuration - request for input. |
|
|
OK, thanks.
--
Tim
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23kDO7Ml1FHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | As long as disk management is showing a basic disk with available
unallocated space after the partition, it should work fine.
Regards,
John
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:eH0LxLM1FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Wow, that's quite the procedure. Thanks for the link. I knew about
the
requirement for Basic (MBR) formatted disks for clusters. As long as the
new
space was "directly adjacent" to the existing space, it was my
understanding
that diskpart would do the trick. Is this true?
Thank you all for your input so far. It's been very helpful
--
Tim.
"John Toner [MVP]" <jtoner@DIE.SPAM.DIE.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O%23kE8yK1FHA.984@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
EMC storage can be dynamically expanded in the array, an then you can
use
diskpart.exe to expand the filesystem. See the following for more
details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263590
Regards,
John
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <brian@briandesmond.com> wrote in message
news:uG2ju6H1FHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You can use something like Veritas Volume Damager to do the expansion.
I
suspect htere are other products out there. I can attest that the
expansion
works in Storage Foundations (aka Volume Manager), but, can't
recommend
it
in general (or any of Veritas HA stuff).
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
"Ahmad Muhsin" <muhsinak@eim.ae> wrote in message
news:dj3iah$9dd1@news-dxb.emirates.net.ae...
Hi,
As far as I know dynamic volumes are not supported with microsoft
cluster
unless you use thirdparty volume managers like veritas.
Regards
Ahmad Muhsin
"Tim Munro" <Excelsior@Liamtoh.moc> wrote in message
news:uDneWX%230FHA.2428@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello all,
I am about to start configuring a W2k3 (Active directory)
cluster
for
file services offerings (and a possible DFS root).
Hardware:
HP DL380 G4, 4GB ram, RAID-1 36GB system drive
SAN attached shared disk resources (0.5TB, and 1TB plus 1GB
quorum)
Each disk has one partition, the full size of the disk.
I would like to create one virtual node accessing the 0.5TB
disk,
and
one virtual node accessing the 1TB disk. I would like to run each
of
these virtual nodes one on each of the physical nodes.
Why?
1) political "perception" that student traffic and faculty/staff
traffic are on separate machines.
2) spread the load out a bit. (both are fairly heavily used)
Each would act as a failover for the other if necessary.
Questions:
Is the disk partitioning acceptable? Optimal? (I may need to
dynamically expand the disks in the future)
Is this an acceptable cluster setup? Common? Supported?
recommended?
Any ideas, comments, do's and don'ts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much
--
Tim.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in