Smart Array Cluster Storage Question

[Jeff Dean_2]

We have a Compaq Smart Array Cluster Storage Enclosure that is connected to (1) an ML370G2 and (2)an ML530G2 both systems are running Win2K Adv Server SP3. What we are curious about is if anyone has had any luck using the Smart Array Cluster in a "shared-disk" setup vs a "shared-nothing" setup? It appears that a number of products might have the ability to do a "shared-disk" but the usual line that we get is: "Our product is designed for a traditional SAN not a direct attatched cluster". Our goal is to have a shared data area that both servers would have access to so that the files one server makes (.ps) the other server could process (.pdf). Due to the size of the .ps files a network transfer of the files would offset any gains accomplished by moving the work to another server. Any thoughts?

[Doug de Werd]

The Smart Array Cluster Storage can theoretically support either shared nothing or shared disk configurations. The type of disk access is independent of the hardware in this case.

The real key is in order to do a true shared disk, you MUST have some kind of OS/application disk management system that coordinates disk access to a common disk volume. For example, if you run Windows on both servers - and without any cluster software (as MSCS is shared nothing)- both of the serevrs will see and have access to all of the disk volumes in the shared storage. This is a DANGEROUS situation, and you will corrupt your data if you allow both servers to simply access a common disk volume through Windows.

Bottom line - you MUST use some type of software disk volume manager that coordinates access, and MSCS will not do it.


Thanks,
Doug

[Jeff Dean_2]

Doug (or anyone else),

Thanks for the response to my question. Do you happen to know of a software solution that will handle the Distributed File Lock Management in a Win 2K enviornment on this particular hardware. I questioned Veritas about SANPoint Direct and they said that it is only designed for a traditional FC SAN and didn't respond when directly questioned about the specific reasons why it wouldn't in this instance.

Thanks again,
Jeff