Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

OK - I admit - I'm a newbie at this - but I've made great headway and have one last hang-up to implementing our virtual infrastructure. My issue has come down to doing a SAN transfer between 2 hosts. My infrastructure exists as follows: 1 - MD3000i iSCSI Storage Array 2 - Windows Server 2008 R2 Hosts with Hyper-V 1 - Windows Server 2008 with VMM 2008 R2 Each VM Guest is assigned to 1 LUN My Configuration for SAN transfer followed this doc:

I am trying to setup the hosts to do a successful transfer. I have the SAN transfer feature working - however my hang-up is this. When using VMM 2008 R2 to do a SAN transfer between 2 hosts the wizard asks me to pick a storage location on the new host. If I am doing a SAN transfer where my VM Guest resides on its own LUN - how come I have to pick a storage location? I simply want the LUN dropped on one Host and moved to the other.

I proceeded with picking a storage location and what this essentially does is create a junction point on my "D Drive" that has a link to the volume where the LUN was setup on the new host. This does not seem to be an efficient process because now my "D Drive" will have all these "pointers" to the volumes where my guests reside.

I hope this makes sense - please help as this seems to be the last hurdle we have before truly implementing our Virtual infrastructure.

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

No, this is how it works. You are strongly advices to set up a cluster and use clustered shared storage (so you ahve only ONE LUN for ALL the VM's). But without that.. yes, you get junction points. That is how it is sure that the same path can be used for all items.

share|improve this answer

I have to agree with TomTom. Set up a cluster. My previous unclustered, two-node Hyper-V setup was nothing compared to my current clustered, with SAN storage and SCVMM 2008 R2.

World of difference! And the sooner you can set it up the better, so you don't have to fragment your production SAN storage or anything.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, the "one LUN per disc" thing is as pathetic as it gets practically. REALLY bad. Thank heaven those times are over now ;) – TomTom Mar 9 '10 at 13:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.