http://www.sqlmag.com/authors/author/author/5022653/rsscomment/5022653en-USFri, 25 May 2012 10:24:44 GMTFri, 25 May 2012 10:24:44 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/backup-recovery/storage-vendors-dont-clue-databases-143096#commentsAnchorWed, 16 May 2012 14:19:23 GMT
Could EMC be aiming their comments at clusters based on GUIDs? Seems to be a common habit among vendors but with the lack of a sequential guid capability on SQL server 2005 they just seem to be a way to fragment indexes instantly.]]>onebalanceWed, 16 May 2012 14:19:23 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/backup-recovery/storage-vendors-dont-clue-databases-143096#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/slow-sql-server-troubleshooting-142367#commentsAnchorThu, 03 May 2012 04:56:20 GMT
Hi Denny, Thanks for providing really helpful script to find out the statement level cost... If we change the StatementSubTreeCost to FLOAT, we can get proper ordering as well... SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED; WITH XMLNAMESPACES (DEFAULT 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2004/07/showplan') SELECT query_plan AS CompleteQueryPlan, cast(n.value('(@StatementSubTreeCost)[1]', 'VARCHAR(128)') as float) AS StatementSubTreeCost, dm_ecp.usecounts FROM sys.dm_exec_cached_plans AS dm_ecp CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_query_plan(plan_handle) AS dm_eqp CROSS APPLY query_plan.nodes ('/ShowPlanXML/BatchSequence/Batch/Statements/StmtSimple') AS qp(n) ORDER BY StatementSubTreeCost DESC GO]]>Chinatk ChhapiaThu, 03 May 2012 04:56:20 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/slow-sql-server-troubleshooting-142367#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/ssds-spinning-disks-whats-140120#commentsAnchorWed, 07 Mar 2012 16:14:35 GMT
I have read that "Page Life Expectancy" counter is not as important with SQL2005 as it was earlier. If this is the case then why this counter? ]]>asinghWed, 07 Mar 2012 16:14:35 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/ssds-spinning-disks-whats-140120#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/flood-141843#commentsAnchorWed, 25 Jan 2012 11:17:30 GMT
Yes, Netapp is having real problems supplying any new drives, SATA or SAS. I would hope that they are keeping a reserve for failure replacements. ]]>jfayWed, 25 Jan 2012 11:17:30 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/flood-141843#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/flash-memory/crucial-m4-ssd-141669#commentsAnchorFri, 23 Dec 2011 08:52:42 GMT
I upgrade laptops every 3-4 years and this time around I got an Alienware m17xR3 and dropped a pair of Crucial M4s in it (128GB and 256GB). My experience has been stunning with this machine. I P2V'd my old laptop (which had 2 physical hard disks in it) and it now runs faster in a VMWare virtual machine than it did on the physical hardware! :-) Kevin Boles]]>TheSQLGuruFri, 23 Dec 2011 08:52:42 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/flash-memory/crucial-m4-ssd-141669#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-switch-bottleneck-141449#commentsAnchorTue, 20 Dec 2011 07:39:08 GMT
Bandwidth is measured as amount of data read or written in some amount of time. This article refers to a 'Gig' of bandwidth. What is a 'Gig' of bandwidth? Is it a Gigabyte per second (GBps) or a Gigabit per second (Gbps). There is an order of magnitude between the two measurements. '4 Gig port' should be written '4 Gbps Port' to avoid confusion, and avoid mathematical miscalculations of I/O bandwidth.]]>ILoveSQLTue, 20 Dec 2011 07:39:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-switch-bottleneck-141449#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorSat, 17 Dec 2011 16:55:34 GMT
Well, I'm a big fan of iSCSI and the technology is getting better all the time. You cite security and performance as in efficiencies inside iSCSI, but that simply doesn't hold up in my opinion. CHAP authentication and IPSec are ways of ensuring the security and also segregating to multiple private network paths for performance and security. The latest iSCSI initiiators have an extensive policy set to provide failover and round robin activity too. The beauty of iSCSI is that you need run of the mill network equipment such as NICs, switches,etc and TCP\IP setup skills. They each have their pros and cons regards Perry Whittle]]>perry whittleSat, 17 Dec 2011 16:55:34 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 23:42:09 GMT
Hey thanks - its a good read.]]>yupsayWed, 14 Dec 2011 23:42:09 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 16:06:08 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 16:06:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 16:04:04 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 16:04:04 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 13:05:23 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 13:05:23 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:56:33 GMT
Note: This comment is being posted on behalf of J. Metz of Cisco who tried to post however ran into issues with this sites commenting mechanism. Since my comment posted he asked if I would post the following on his behalf. Note that the following is via J and do not reflect my opinions/recommendations nor should be seen as an endorsement. +++ On Denny's blog: Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz jmmetz@cisco.com twitter @jmichelmetz ++++ Direct comments to J at above contacts... +++]]>gregschulzWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:56:33 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:56:06 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:56:06 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:54:49 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:54:49 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:51:00 GMT
Disclosure: This comment is being posted on behalf of J. Metz of Cisco who tried to post however ran into issues with this sites commenting mechanism. Since my comment posted he asked if I would post the following on his behalf. Note that the following is via J and do not reflect my opinions/recommendations nor should be seen as an endorsement. <<<< On Denny's blog: Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz=jmmetz@cisco.com twitter @jmichelmetz >>>> Please direct any comments to J via above contacts... Cheers gs ]]>gregschulzWed, 14 Dec 2011 12:51:00 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:53:45 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:53:45 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:51:56 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:51:56 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:08:42 GMT
Denny good point about "it depends" which to use. However there is another option which is not commonly talked about when it comes to setting up a shared storage environment aka SAN which is shared SAS, either switched or non-switched. Here is a link ( http://storageioblog.com/?p=2044 ) to learn more about shared SAS, the other SAN. The pro of shared SAS is that many server vendors (Cisco, Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle, etc) are providing native SAS including 6Gb support on their servers similar to native Ethernet along with support for PCIe SAS adapters and blade server mezzanine cards. There are also storage systems that support a mix of native iSCSI, SAS and FC (some with FCoE support or ready for it) including from Dothill, Dell, HP, IBM, NetApp, Oracle, Promise etc. To increase the number of usable ports on those storage systems from the usual four or eight SAS ports, SAS switches can be used as is the case with some vendors prepackaged systems. Note that for VMware environments there is even HCL support. Benefits include relative low cost similar to 1Gb E iSCSI with performance closer to 8Gb FC. Caveats include limited distance of a few meters (e.g. inside a cabinet or adjacent cabinet), not as widely discussed as not as many people read, hear or know about the capability. Compared to iSCSI or FC/FCoE, server attached connectivity will be limited in terms of 10s of servers vs. potential for 100s. Of course, the correct answer of when to use iSCSI, SAS, FC, and FCoE for shared block based storage access (e.g. SAN), each of which have their pros/cons including when/where to use or not use is "it depends"... They are all good when used where applicable along with where the strengths exist. Cheers ]]>gregschulzWed, 14 Dec 2011 11:08:42 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:40:04 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:40:04 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:38:20 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:38:20 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:37:44 GMT
Hello Denny, Thank you for putting this together. Most of the information you provide is very useful. However, there are a few items regarding FCoE that need to be corrected clarified. First and most important, the FCoE "spec" has been finished and finalized for a long time. The T11 vote for FC-BB-5 (the standard document for FCoE, including Multihop FCoE) passed the final vote in 2009, long after it was technically stabilized in 2007. INCITS published the standard in May, 2010. Like any standards document, additional standards are developed that includes new features, much like operating systems add features with new revisions. This is why the standards bodies continue to work on new document revisions, not because earlier ones weren't finished. Second, inasmuch as you state that there are not a lot of vendors, I'm afraid your information must be out of date. There are dozens of companies that have FCoE-related equipment available now. Plugfests at the UNH Interoperability Labs recently conducted its seventh FCoE plugfest, which included over a dozen companies. Easily a dozen more have FCoE equipment (i.e., CNAs, switches, storage arrays). VMWare has upped the ante with considerable FCoE support in VSphere 5. Every major server manufacturer - HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, e.g. - have CNAs available for their product lines. (Disclosure, I work as a Product Manager for FCoE for Cisco, so granted my information may be a bit more readily available). Hope this helps. Best, J Metz]]>J MetzWed, 14 Dec 2011 10:37:44 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/fiber-channel-iscsi-fcoe-141567#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/iops-megs-141104#commentsAnchorFri, 02 Dec 2011 02:54:00 GMT
Hi Denny, Thanks for the clarification. This is very helpful. I understand why it isn't useful to monitor IOPS in a sequential IO scneraio, but I don't understand why it isn't useful to monitor megs per second in a random IO scenario. In an OLTP system, if all IO operations were of the same size, then there wouldn't be a difference between monitoring IOPS vs. megs per second. But in reality there are small IO operations and large IO operations. Monitoring megs per second will give us some kind of average throughput in the system. What's wrong with this approach? If we can always monitor IO activity with the same counters, then our life would be easier, because we won't need to make assumptions about the characteristics of each system - whether it's more sequential or more random in nature. Guy Glantser, SQL Server Consultant, Madeira ]]>madeiraFri, 02 Dec 2011 02:54:00 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/storage/iops-megs-141104#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/sql-server/storage-snapshots-donm-good-backup-140177#commentsAnchorWed, 16 Nov 2011 10:46:45 GMT
While I agree that the storage vendor's snapshot utilities do not create a reliable backup for databases, I'm pretty sure that you have not described snapshot properly. A snapshot DOES provide a reliable copy of every block, either by copying them all, if no baseline backup exists, or copying changed blocks, if there is a baseline. A snapshot that only captures new writes, without reference to a baseline backup, would obviously be unusable for any kind of restore (databases or just the simplest text file.) It's true that in order to provide a semblance of consistency, snapshot DOES capture writes that occur during the snapshot process.. It does this so that it can capture the old values before they are written, assuring that it the backup corresponds to a moment in time. You may have confused the notion of snapshot with a continuous (aka live or realtime) backup. Still, even this kind of backup depends on a baseline backup. Also, it writes the NEW block values, so that the backup has the latest data. The reason that snapshots are not usable as database backups is not because some blocks were not backed up. Rather, it is because there is no guarantee that at a moment in time a single database data file is internally consistent. On a live database, the transaction log must be used with the data file to guarantee consistency. ]]>leotohillWed, 16 Nov 2011 10:46:45 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/blog/troubleshooting-sql-server-storage-problems-51/sql-server/storage-snapshots-donm-good-backup-140177#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorFri, 14 Oct 2011 09:31:59 GMT
great document I found after long searches.Well My question is how 2nd instance is installed. I installed 1st Instance with NodeA as Preffered Owner and want to add 2nd Instance with new Cluster Resource Group with NodeB as preffered Owner.Do I have to follow same setup start with NodeB? how many SQL Server and SQL agent services installed on two nodes after installation of 2nd Instance? Thanks in advance avindia@gmail.com]]>avindiaFri, 14 Oct 2011 09:31:59 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorTue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:51 GMT
]]>GaryTue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:51 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorTue, 15 Jun 2010 00:25:55 GMT
We have 2-node a/p cluster setup for SQL Server 2005 with SP3 and have SSIS installed only on Node1.

No SSIS installed on Node2. Now, I want to perform in-place upgrade to SQL Server 2008 and came to know that we should have same features installed on both nodes in order to perform in-place upgrade to SQL Server 2008.

Question:

Do we need to install SSIS on Node2 and perform in-place upgrade to SQL Server 2008?

Thanks]]>Gangadhar pisariTue, 15 Jun 2010 00:25:55 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorTue, 23 Mar 2010 09:15:46 GMT
I am planning a consolidation 2 nodes SQL Failover Cluster that will host 5 instances of SQL Server (four OLTP and one OLAP) on a Windows 2008R2 EE Cluster. Unfortunately one of the application accessing one database, will have support only if the DB engine is SQL 2005, while the four others are SQL 2008 certified. Would you create a "mixed" cluster hosting 4 instances of SQL 2008 and one instance of SQL 2005 or just install only SQL 2005 for all instances? An upgrade could be made in the future for one or all instances in both cases, right? All applications using that cluster are mission critical... Thanks for your advise.]]>FaleniTue, 23 Mar 2010 09:15:46 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorTue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:35 GMT
I am planning a consolidation 2 nodes SQL Failover Cluster that will host 5 instances of SQL Server (four OLTP and one OLAP) on a Windows 2008R2 EE Cluster. Unfortunately one of the application accessing one database, will have support only if the DB engine is SQL 2005, while the four others are SQL 2008 certified. Would you create a "mixed" cluster hosting 4 instances of SQL 2008 and one instance of SQL 2005 or just install only SQL 2005 for all instances? An upgrade could be made in the future for one or all instances in both cases, right? All applications using that cluster are mission critical... Thanks for your advise.]]>FaleniTue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:35 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorTue, 23 Mar 2010 08:46:26 GMT
I am planning a consolidation 2 nodes SQL Failover Cluster that will host 5 instances of SQL Server (four OLTP and one OLAP) on a Windows 2008R2 EE Cluster. Unfortunately one of the application accessing one database, will have support only if the DB engine is SQL 2005, while the four others are SQL 2008 certified. Would you create a "mixed" cluster hosting 4 instances of SQL 2008 and one instance of SQL 2005 or just install only SQL 2005 for all instances? An upgrade could be made in the future for one or all instances in both cases, right? All applications using that cluster are mission critical... Thanks for your advise.]]>FaleniTue, 23 Mar 2010 08:46:26 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorSun, 28 Feb 2010 17:42:00 GMT
In the section "Planning the Cluster Upgrade", the sentence "Youll upgrade the active node first, then the passive node", should read instead: "Start by upgrading the passive node".]]>DimitriosSun, 28 Feb 2010 17:42:00 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/clustering/upgrading-a-sql-server-2005-cluster-to-a-sql-server-2008#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorThu, 18 Feb 2010 13:24:08 GMT
Thank you for making this article easier to understand than the first one on this topic.]]>AlexThu, 18 Feb 2010 13:24:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorWed, 18 Nov 2009 06:29:57 GMT
Thishas been an excellent article. Thank you. Great to be able to review and answer some of those questions that seem to linger.]]>AngusWed, 18 Nov 2009 06:29:57 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorFri, 04 Sep 2009 09:59:52 GMT
This is super valuable information. We have been working on an upgrade plan from a Windows Server 2003 / SQL Server 2005 Cluster to a Windows Server 2008 /SQL Server 2008 Cluster. Problem is our SAN runs on Serial Attached SCSI which isn’t supported. We even started configuring a VMware lab environment which also is not supported! You saved us a lot of wasted time and money. So now we will set it up as Windows Server 2003 / SQL Server 2008. Just paid for our subscription many times over. Great magazine. Great article. WTG Denny!]]>RobertFri, 04 Sep 2009 09:59:52 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/project-plan-dbadmin-sql-server-2008-r2-79/configuration/set-up-a-sql-server-2008-cluster#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/clustering/planning-and-implementing-a-sql-server-cluster#commentsAnchorMon, 03 Aug 2009 09:47:56 GMT
Thanks a lot. Take Care!]]>MarcosMon, 03 Aug 2009 09:47:56 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/clustering/planning-and-implementing-a-sql-server-cluster#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorTue, 09 Jun 2009 17:43:11 GMT
dbadvisor, When I wrote up this article I used our EMC SAN as my reference. Because of the intelligent prefailing of drives in the array I do forget that there are fault tolerances differences between the two. daletrotman, This is correct, Windows 2008 does now align the disks at 128 instead of the 63 which Windows 2003 and prior have done. So technically you don’t need to change the alignment as with the disk aligned at 128 will have the same performance as 64. But with the other features of diskpart that are so useful when working with a SAN such as extending disks online that it is important to mention it. MarsonGalvani, Thank you.]]>DennyTue, 09 Jun 2009 17:43:11 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorTue, 12 May 2009 19:42:56 GMT
The description of RAID 10 is not correct. You have described RAID 0+1, striping, then mirroring. RAID 1+0 (often called RAID 10) is mirroring, then striping. These are very different configurations. RAID 1+0 is far more fault tolerant than RAID 0+1.]]>LoriTue, 12 May 2009 19:42:56 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorWed, 06 May 2009 09:30:36 GMT
Great article. I have one point though. You mentioned using the DISKPART.EXE command-line tool in Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2003 to align the partition. Is this not a standard feature in Windows Server 2008 and therefore not required? I make this point as we are just building a SAN in our company and do not intend to make this change. Should we still use the DISKPART.EXE tool do you think?]]>daleWed, 06 May 2009 09:30:36 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorTue, 05 May 2009 10:47:49 GMT
Very good article. Thanks for the tips.]]>MarcosTue, 05 May 2009 10:47:49 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/iscsi/configuring-storage-for-your-sql-server-environment#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/clustering/planning-and-implementing-a-sql-server-cluster#commentsAnchorThu, 04 Dec 2008 13:55:08 GMT
As always, very useful.]]>CharlesThu, 04 Dec 2008 13:55:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/clustering/planning-and-implementing-a-sql-server-cluster#commentsAnchor