<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73347#M4390</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I don't want to create any confusion and I mean no disrespect, but the statement from "Welch" that this is a supported configuration is incorrect.&amp;nbsp; The IMT has no stated support for this configuration and I have run this post and question by 2 different Senior Support Engineers and this is their response:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;Combining a SQL FCI with an availability group is not supported in SnapDrive/SMSQL.&amp;nbsp; This is due to a limitation within SnapDrive that attempts to communicate with all nodes defined within the cluster object.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;Typically, we would suggest that for these three nodes, each node have dedicated storage, rather than use a failover instance (with shared storage) in the primary location."&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:09:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>spence</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-10-03T16:09:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73329#M4386</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is the following setup supported / doable from a SQL 2012, SnapDrive &amp;amp; SMSQL perspective:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A local 2-node SQL 2012 AlwaysOn Failover Cluster Instance, stretched to a 3rd, remote node via AlwaysOn Availability Group?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;Radek&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:53:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73329#M4386</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:53:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73334#M4387</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;While I have seen this run, it was set up via a workaround.&amp;nbsp; As stated below, it is not supported.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 05:30:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73334#M4387</guid>
      <dc:creator>welch</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-09-27T05:30:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73339#M4388</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Justin,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks for your response.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In practical terms though - how do we provision LUNs with SnapDrive? AlwaysOn AG operates on top of a 3-node MS cluster, which includes 2 local &amp;amp; 1 remote node. SnapDrive plainly refuses to create a drive associated with local nodes only.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Radek&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:48:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73339#M4388</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-01T12:48:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73342#M4389</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the meantime I figured out following workaround for creating LUNs:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL style="list-style-type: circle;"&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;MS cluster nodes at both sides need to have visibility of both local &amp;amp; remote filer and they need to establish iSCSI sessions with them&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;Create a LUN on a given node using SnapDrive – it has to be associated with all MS cluster nodes at this point&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;In MS Failover Cluster Manager, select storage object representing created LUN, open Properties, select Advanced Policies tab &amp;amp; limit Possible Owners to local nodes only&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;On the filer remove LUN mappings to remote nodes&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"&gt;Repeat for all required LUNs&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can anyone tell me if there is a less clunky method of achieving this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:17:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73342#M4389</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-03T14:17:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73347#M4390</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I don't want to create any confusion and I mean no disrespect, but the statement from "Welch" that this is a supported configuration is incorrect.&amp;nbsp; The IMT has no stated support for this configuration and I have run this post and question by 2 different Senior Support Engineers and this is their response:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"&lt;SPAN style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;Combining a SQL FCI with an availability group is not supported in SnapDrive/SMSQL.&amp;nbsp; This is due to a limitation within SnapDrive that attempts to communicate with all nodes defined within the cluster object.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM style="color: #1f497d;"&gt;Typically, we would suggest that for these three nodes, each node have dedicated storage, rather than use a failover instance (with shared storage) in the primary location."&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:09:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73347#M4390</guid>
      <dc:creator>spence</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-03T16:09:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73350#M4391</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well, many thanks for your input - not the news I was hoping for, but at least we have some movement in this thread! &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="cool" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_macro_emoticon jive_emote" src="https://community.netapp.com/5.0.1/images/emoticons/cool.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:38:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/73350#M4391</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-03T16:38:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/101756#M4392</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Has this situation changed? Has been that Snapshot Limitation been corrected? FCI provides some benefits different to the AlwaysOn. How can we raise the important of this support?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:36:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/101756#M4392</guid>
      <dc:creator>AlejandroChavez</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-03-13T16:36:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SQL 2012 - AlwaysOn FCI + AG</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/106269#M4393</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are looking at aquiring NetApp as our SAN solution and our planned configuration for the SQL\cluster architecture was the same\similar as described here.&amp;nbsp; Of course the sales people said it i was no issue.&amp;nbsp; It sounds like it actually is.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I am interested in more information on what you did as a solution, or was it just a work around?&amp;nbsp; Since I am in the beginning stages I want to make sure I set this up right the first time.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:00:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SQL-2012-AlwaysOn-FCI-AG/m-p/106269#M4393</guid>
      <dc:creator>SusanMariner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-16T12:00:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

