Paul,
Thank you for your expertise and efforts.
Sorry to bother you again with this question:
The general rule for Hyper-V VM highly available is per VM per LUN.
What about VM with lots of drive letters and should we assign more LUNs to
it?
Thank you for your time.
"Paul Weterings" wrote:
Quote:
> John wrote: Quote:
> > Great help and thank you for your efforts to help others.
> >
> > Quick quesions: The SAN should directly attached host if we do host
> > clustering?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
>
> If I understand your question correct: yes. If you intend to cluster
> between the VM's the SAN should best be using directly attached to the
> VM's. Keep in mind that how you attach storage very much depends on the
> application you want highly available. (for example: don't run exchange
> 2007 on a Hyper-V cluster, but rather cluster two hyper-V VM's running
> Exchange as an Exchange CCR cluster..)
>
> I'm not sure what you will be running on the VM's, but just as some
> background information: MS has recently posted
> (http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...yperV2008.docx)
> the results of tests where they reported results of fixed size VHD's to
> be quite similar to pass-through storage.
>
> If you're intending to do an Exchange 2007 deployment on Hyper-V and
> cluster it: pass-through storage is advised:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc794548.aspx
>
> That will be my next article b.t.w. ;-)
>
> regards,
>
> --
>
> / ) Regards,
> / /_________
> _|__|__) Paul Weterings
> / (O_) http://www.servercare.nl
> __/ (O_)
> ____(O_)
>