We currently have several SQL 2000 Servers accessing databases and logs on an F720 via CIFS. It works very well. We've not used the VLD option but do plan to implement it for Exchange by the end of the year. We'll probably use CIFS for as long as MS supports it for our SQL databases.
As far as performance goes, we saw a small performance hit with our SQL databases primarily because of the way that our volume is layed out. We have a single 12 spindle volume that is shared with 3 SQL Servers, 3 Notes Servers, and user homes. As you can see this is not ideal, but in this configuration, our SQL Servers still perform remarkably well. By the way, we are going to separate our volumes eventually so that SQL has it's own set of disks. My recommendation would be to set your filer up with it's own SQL volume if at all possible. Feel free to contact me if you have any further quesitons.
----------------------------------------------- Luther L. Allin IV, MCSE, ICSA Network Systems Engineer Miller & Martin LLP 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000 Chattanooga, TN 37402 lallin@millermartin.com http://www.millermartin.com/ Phone: 423-785-8381 Fax: 423-321-1678 -----------------------------------------------
Steven Keene SKeene@creativesolutions.com on 08/01/2003 08:30:15 AM
To: toasters@mathworks.com cc: (bcc: Luther Allin/M&M) Subject: Does anyone have experience with SQL 2000 on NetApp?
Hi, just wondering if anyone has had experience with either Windows 2003 and/or SQL 2000 on NetApp running with VLD. I am new to NetApp and being soon to install one, was wondering about different volume sizes and performance with SQL databases. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks, Steve