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

I recently inherited a SQL Server 2005 box that has LUNs mounted on it from three different NetApp FAS2050 filers. The reason there are three is because the first two filers are out of space and our databases continually need more of it. What kind of performance impact (if any) does this setup have? Is it better to move the LUNs from the two other older filers to the newer one so that we have only one filer/controller for caching, etc ?

This is in general. I apologize for not having more specifics.

share|improve this question

More spindles/controllers is generally good. I'd keep the 3. Especially given the specs of that filer and you're using 3 of them...

I would however consider which bit of data sits where... and consider using one each for logs, data and tempdb. There may be better ways to distibute data but this is good start

share|improve this answer
Also check what DB's are using which volumes and how much free space is available to them. Running out of space for a database is very bad... – tegbains May 7 '10 at 6:04

As gbn states this could actually help your performance, especially if you split filers by function as gbn also states. One potential consideration would be to use teamed NICs from your server to your switches if you haven't already - the reason is that you'll have at least 3 different MACs (one per filer) so teaming your NICs should genuinely improve your performance over a single one - just something to think about.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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