Does anyone have any recommendations on installing SQL Server on a NAS. Installing it on a SAN seems to be the recommendation, but what is wrong with just a NAS if concurrency and speed is of a lesser concern? For example, I found this: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/304261 but I have seen references online that some NAS is ok to use as your device for SQL Server db. Also, I am curious what File System people use in a clustered environment (probably used only on SANs) for parallel access. Everything I read points me to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPFS but that could just be better marketing. Any suggestions and wisdom would be appreciated. Thanks. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_attached_storage
The wording is poor, it's trying to say that custom configuration of SQL server is required to support NAS. Have you considered saving money on license fees and using replicated PostgreSQL? It's very powerful and not at all difficult to set up if you're familiar with databases. Apart from saving money, you also won't have to deal with Microsoft's hourly security issues.
Thanks for the response. I am thinking more SAN than NAS now. It will be on a layer 2 network, hence not routable and hence worrying about security is almost a non-issue. Further, this SAN will have no connection outside a LAN. PostgreSQL is ok as a database, but not an option for me.
"I" (nitro), I always had a sense about you that, you're trying to do everything too much... In the bigger world, we have people paid well to figure out all your concerns. There's more value to a "Specialist" than a "Jack-of-all-trades" because you can never beat a full time Fin. IT dealing with something more than you are trying to do. Of course, it's great to understand how things are but no one cares if you can do it... As a matter of fact, you'll be an annoying newbie who demands all the little shit, making you a know it all... A while back, I made my choice which side I want to be in... I wanted to be dealing with large funds and institutions, so I'm where I'm at right now. Though reading all these posts about your "suspections" about IT technology makes me wonder... Are you a Financial IT or a system developer???? Are you trying be solo or work in the institutional level??? I always wonder about you... ... just my 2 cents...
nitro, I'm a little late responding but there's nothing wrong with running SQL Server on a NAS, we do it at work. Not sure what your concerns are... "Speed" and "latency" are really non-issues too, if you're running 1G ethernet or better. Go for it!
Would you to expand on the system, end to end? For example, what NAS do you use. Did you use a seperate fabric, or did you just stick on the LAN and go? How much abuse does it take in realtime? How many servers writing to it at once?
I have no choice. We are managing $, and all of it is risk capital until we are able to hire me help. Even my partners are afraid my head is going to explode. I discuss a fraction of a fraction of what I am actually responsible for here. You actually don't know.
nitro, we're runnin' Server 2003 on Compaq or Dell e.g. Proliant DL585 or Dell 6850s. we are usin' NetApps filer 30501 or equivalent runnin' yeah, just over the LAN (are we bad or what)? (We gotta plan to migrate to dedicated network, but so far haven't done it) It takes a LOT of abuse, we gotta transactional database with our core financials (insurance company) plus a summarized data warehouse on the same box (again, are we bad or what)? we do have some issues with the volume of transactions we are experiencing. However, it suffices and for now we gotta live with it. Long term plan to move to Oracle (I'm really an Oracle DBA; do SQL Server as a backup for one of my reports). An acquired company we own was usin' EMC hardware, the lower-end stuff I believe you can get from Dell. My background is with EMC Symmetrix which absolutely kicks a*s, but in my experience the NetApps stuff isn't bad at all. Until yer talkin' enterprise-level workload (and I mean, billion-dollar company type stuff), NetApps will do ya fine. In fact, if yer REALLY on a budget, there's an iSCSI solution on linux that could work in a low-volume environment. If yer interested I'll look it up for you. Regards, Big c [edit] scratch that, I was thinkin' Oracle. I don't believe the iSCSI deal will work w/SQL server.