"Randy K" <waw***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:441b007f.3113640@msnews.microsoft.com...
> My agency is configuring its first SAN, a IBM DS4000.  None of our
> staff know the best way to configure it for use wtih SQL Server 2000.
> I haven't been able to find any white papers or SANS forums to bring
> myself, as DBA, up to speed.  Any recommendations?
>
> Now for a specific question.  The IBM tech has told our hardware folks
> to sent up one 2TB LUN for our orthophoto database.  A few users on
> this forum suggest breaking that up into multiple LUNs.  By next year
> we will have added another 2 TB for the growth of that database.   Is
> there a way to present multiple LUNs as one attach point for SQL
> Server or will it be one drive letter assignment for each LUN?
>
>

> My agency is configuring its first SAN, a IBM DS4000.  None of our
> staff know the best way to configure it for use wtih SQL Server 2000.
> I haven't been able to find any white papers or SANS forums to bring
> myself, as DBA, up to speed.  Any recommendations?
>
> Now for a specific question.  The IBM tech has told our hardware folks
> to sent up one 2TB LUN for our orthophoto database.  A few users on
> this forum suggest breaking that up into multiple LUNs.  By next year
> we will have added another 2 TB for the growth of that database.   Is
> there a way to present multiple LUNs as one attach point for SQL
> Server or will it be one drive letter assignment for each LUN?
>
>
Hi Randy

>Randy K wrote:
>> My agency is configuring its first SAN, a IBM DS4000.  None of our
>> staff know the best way to configure it for use wtih SQL Server 2000.
>> I haven't been able to find any white papers or SANS forums to bring
>> myself, as DBA, up to speed.  Any recommendations?
>>
>> Now for a specific question.  The IBM tech has told our hardware folks
>> to sent up one 2TB LUN for our orthophoto database.  A few users on
>> this forum suggest breaking that up into multiple LUNs.  By next year
>> we will have added another 2 TB for the growth of that database.   Is
>> there a way to present multiple LUNs as one attach point for SQL
>> Server or will it be one drive letter assignment for each LUN?
>>
>>
>Hi Randy
>
>What should be the purpose of having several LUN's ? Unless somebody can
>come up with any specific reason for splitting it up, I'd listen to the
>IBM guys and set it up like they suggest.
>
>
>Regards
>Steen

>Randy K wrote:
>> Steen,
>>   The concern expressed by our GIS vendor is that  the longer the
>> recovery takes the more risk we assume that another disk will fail
>> during recovery which would be 'fatal' so to speak (i.e. back to
>> tape).
>>
>> SATA drives are not as robust so they may have a higher failure rate.
>>
>> Randy
>
>Hi Randy
>
>I'm not an expert on LUN's but I've never heard that it should make a
>difference in relation to rebuilding time. In our setup our biggest
>arrary is 24 disks in a RAID 5 assigned a single LUN and we've never
>experienced any problems. When you have to rebuild/replace a disk it's
>in my opinion the number of disks in the whole array that makes a
>difference. I know that (some) IBM storages  (and maybe other vendors as
>well) have the ability to have e.g. 2 RAID 5 arrays acting as one
>towards the OS. I don't know if this is what you're talking about? We
>have talked to IBM about this for some time ago, but they didn't really
>recommended this solution.
>I can't remember the exact reason, but I think it was something like it
>didn't really gave any improvement of performance but in turn it added
>some unnecessary complexity to the setup.
>
>BTW: It was my understanding that LUNs was only relevant when talking
>about SCSI disks and not ATA/SATA disks, but apparently I'm wrong?
>
>Regards
>Steen