<?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: microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17686#M8868</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r41/vsp_41_mscs.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r41/vsp_41_mscs.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;virtual cluster members are currently only supported using FCP-attached shared storage.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our organization are using in-guest iscsi initiators (an unsupported configuration) without any trouble, but its a risk.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We prefer the virtual cluster-across-boxes approach simply because using a physical box makes no sense in our datacenter, since our vmware setups are by far our most reliable platform....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:31:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>evilensky</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-12-11T01:31:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17681#M8867</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;This post was originally posted in the Virtualization section, but since i haven't received any feedback, i thought i'll post it here.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt; &lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Hi,&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt; &lt;P&gt;I&amp;nbsp; wasn't sure where to park this question and since it has something to&amp;nbsp; do with virtualization, I thought I'd put it here.&amp;nbsp; We're currently&amp;nbsp; looking to setup a new cluster based on Windows 2008 R2 and our NetApp&amp;nbsp; SAN (FC) w/Snapdrive 6.3.&amp;nbsp; This new cluster will be used for MS SQL 2008&amp;nbsp; R2 clustering.&amp;nbsp; We're continuing to do some research but just wanted to&amp;nbsp; get some of your input on either going virtual for the two host&amp;nbsp; machines (VM Guests on ESX 4.0), two physical boxes, or one physical and&amp;nbsp; the other a VM.&amp;nbsp; Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We're also looking to leverage SM for SQL too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:03:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17681#M8867</guid>
      <dc:creator>daniel_kaiser</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:03:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17686#M8868</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r41/vsp_41_mscs.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r41/vsp_41_mscs.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;virtual cluster members are currently only supported using FCP-attached shared storage.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our organization are using in-guest iscsi initiators (an unsupported configuration) without any trouble, but its a risk.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We prefer the virtual cluster-across-boxes approach simply because using a physical box makes no sense in our datacenter, since our vmware setups are by far our most reliable platform....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:31:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17686#M8868</guid>
      <dc:creator>evilensky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-12-11T01:31:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17690#M8869</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Evilensky,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you ran into any issues managing or troubleshooting the cluster due to the virtualization layer? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We're really leaning towards a physical box for the active node while a VM guest machine for passive and hope others in the community can chim in and provide some additional info regarding this type of setup in their environment.&amp;nbsp; BTW, we're running FCP and NFS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:07:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17690#M8869</guid>
      <dc:creator>daniel_kaiser</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-12-13T14:07:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17694#M8870</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;ESX for us has been stable as a rock, much more so than physical hardware alone.&amp;nbsp; Not a single issue has been due to the virtualization layer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I also found this in the &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3749.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3749.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt; VMware best practice tech report.&amp;nbsp; I will investigate what it means but maybe support status is better than I thought:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:41:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17694#M8870</guid>
      <dc:creator>evilensky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-01-10T02:41:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: microsoft clustering with physical, virtual, or mix</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17699#M8871</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;More confusion...this time from the ESXi 4.1 Configuration Guide:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:19:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/microsoft-clustering-with-physical-virtual-or-mix/m-p/17699#M8871</guid>
      <dc:creator>evilensky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-01-13T16:19:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

