We have a startup FC SAN and are wondering whether to implement clustering or multipathing for high availability. Although we understand that they are different concepts and are aimed at achieving high availability in different areas, it seems that implementing both would simply be too much for our small environments. In case we have SQL cluster, then a failure in the path to storage array would initiate a fail-over and in case the other cluster node has access to the storage asset (in our case that is true), no disruption to services will occur. Is this a correct assumption?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Clustering Vs. Multipathing
- Thread starter estech25
- Start date
no disruption to services will occur. Is this a correct assumption?
there is always interruption (just a little bit, but there is), multipath will make this job with no interruption, but if your server fails, you will have no server in order to resume your service.
Chacal, Inc.![[wavey]](/data/assets/smilies/wavey.gif "[wavey] [wavey]")
there is always interruption (just a little bit, but there is), multipath will make this job with no interruption, but if your server fails, you will have no server in order to resume your service.
Chacal, Inc.
Also note that Multipathing will just be disks. What would happen if SQL blew up, the server blew up, or memory/cpu, you would have nothing to recover from. Multipathing only allows you to have 2 paths to the disk device using multiple HBA's and Storage Controller Ports.
- Status
Similar threads
