I am not a server expert here, but I am a general admin, so I'll try to keep up ;) I know that versions of this question have been asked, but the answers vary. Hypothetically, I have a server, with a 1TB OS drive, and a 10TB data drive. We are going to run SQL and a proprietary application that keeps the Database updated. We want to make this a highly available server, so we have an identical server that we want to use (along with the first one) to create a two node cluster.
From what I am reading, there are people saying that I cannot create a cluster using servers with local storage, and must use a SAN or NAS, others are saying yes I can. But there is no definitive answer I've found, and I do not want to spend the money to go from hypothetical to reality, if it can't be done.
The problem with a shared storage like NAS, is that it creates a single point of failure. If the NAS fails (power failure, board failure, fire, etc.), then the Database server cluster fails, and that defeats the whole point of the cluster. Clustering is all about eliminating single points of failure, so NAS is not the solution. SAN seems to me like clustered storage, and makes me wonder why I can't just eliminate the complication of the extra hardware, and utilize the two perfectly good arrays I already have in the existing nodes I'm clustering. A SAN in this case just seems like redundant overkill, and a waste of money. I already have the high availability of the two server cluster, and their identical internal storage arrays, with all the storage I need. Why can't I use them?
Is there a way to cluster two servers, with their own locally attached storage? For example, can I take server A with a C: and a locally attached (eg internally configured RAID array) D: drive, and make server B (configured identically) work in a cluster with server A? And can it be made to work with the OS on C:, and the database on the internal D:, without a NAS or a SAN?
Go...