Volume Mount Points vs Drive Letter assignment in a Oracle/SQL Server DB Environment (Pros/Cons)

We are trying to develop a standard server build for Windows Server 2003.  The question is what are the advantages or disadvantages to using Volume mount points for such things as log files etc.  Is there and advantage to mount points over assigning drive letters other than the 26 drive letter limitation?

Thanks in advance for you help
michael_fariesAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

cuziyqCommented:
Mount points can isolate you from problems that may arise where a drive letter changes.  To use an example, you could decide you're running out of space on your C: drive, so you move an application's folder to D:, but that application still expects it's files to be in C:  Normally you'd have to reinstall, but if the program was installed in, say C:\Application, you could mount D: to that folder and the app would still work.

It's all great in theory, but practice is far different.

Some Windows API calls are aware of the "reparse point" as M$ calls it, and some it is completely transparent.  The reparsing takes place in user space, not kernel space like it does with Linux.  Therefore, some applications will simply not work right if you do it that way.  Even worse, some applications will fine, but it breaks a certain feature.  There's no way to really tell.

Reparse points are a good idea, but you should stay away from them if possible because the behavior of program X vs. program Y is inconsistent.  Even if it works fine now, it may give you trouble down the road when it will be a complete pain to change it.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
cuziyqCommented:
One thing you might try is the DFS functionality of Windows Server 2003.  Store your log files or whatever you're trying to do a the DFS root.  It basically appears as a network resource, and the name of that resource will stay the same no matter where that resouce is on the network -- even if it's on the local machine.
0
michael_fariesAuthor Commented:
So what we are looking for is a way to store files on a huge partition (3.5TB) and keep the files seperate but share the space.  The problem we are running into is that we create a dir for logs at 5GB or whatever and then that space fills up and we are stuck with a static partition.  Creating multiple Volume Mount Points across the large disk array will allow us to keep the file seperate and grow them as needed.  Oracle and SQL will be using these various directories.
0
michael_fariesAuthor Commented:
We are trying the mount point solution.  Works for our application so far.  Thanks for the help and suggestions.
0
michael_fariesAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the input... Awarded points to you for your help even though we went with the Mount Points solution on a trial basis.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Databases

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.