Timeline for Drives vs. Mount Points?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 10, 2017 at 20:12 | history | bounty ended | SQL_Deadwood | ||
| S Aug 10, 2017 at 20:12 | history | notice removed | SQL_Deadwood | ||
| Aug 9, 2017 at 15:01 | answer | added | Shellz | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 7, 2017 at 12:27 | history | edited | Paul White♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Incorporated comments; edited tags
|
| Aug 4, 2017 at 21:16 | answer | added | John Eisbrener | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 19:19 | answer | added | Sean Gallardy | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 11:50 | comment | added | Dan Guzman | Physical storage is largely abstracted when one uses a SAN. Regardless of whether one uses a drive letter or mount point, you need to work with storage admins to provide a LUN with the needed characteristics. Neither SQL Server nor the OS will have knowledge of the underlying configuration, although you can install vendor tools to provide visibility. | |
| S Aug 3, 2017 at 16:54 | history | bounty started | SQL_Deadwood | ||
| S Aug 3, 2017 at 16:54 | history | notice added | SQL_Deadwood | Improve details | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 0:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackDBAs/status/831666820310511616 | ||
| Feb 14, 2017 at 17:56 | answer | added | CaM | timeline score: 13 | |
| Feb 14, 2017 at 17:44 | history | asked | SQL_Deadwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |