| Author |
Topic |
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 2012-09-05 : 17:51:55
|
| Here is the scenario, this is kind of confusing to me....I have a parent(mounted) drive called "x", and under "x" I have different data and log drives.....the Parent drive "x" shows full.....so, I went to log drives under "x" and backed up/truncated some logs to free up some space and it did......however, the parent drive "x" still shows as full.Also, there are some old backup files which I cannot delete, it gives me error like "not enough free space to delete"....something like that.Anyone have any clue, let me know. |
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 17:58:51
|
| Are these mount points? If so, the data and log drives are different drives than the X drive, so freeing space on them has no affect on the root.Also, did you shrink the log file? Backing up and truncating do not reclaim disk space.-Chad |
 |
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:07:18
|
| Thank you chad for the quick reply. Did you mean that freeing space on the log does not do any affect on the parent drive?. |
|
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:15:01
|
| If the Data and Log Drives are mount points under a Root of X, then nothing you do will free space for the Root. Why do you need space for the Root anyway? It is only there because SQL Server required a Root drive letter for mount points. My other comment was just a general comment that you have to shrink the file if you are trying to reclaim disk space. Truncating the log clears the inactive log records, but the file remains the same size. That is just how SQL Server works regardless of using mount points or any other storage.-Chad |
|
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:17:16
|
| Thanks again Chad... I will check it and update you back. |
|
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:36:31
|
| The root means the parent mounted drive in this case "x". correct? |
|
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:36:56
|
| yes |
|
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 18:48:55
|
| If I go to a mounted drive's property, it should shows the total used size for all the drives that are underneath it and should show the free space for all the drives as well, right? However, in my scenario, the mounted drive shows full, but if I go to individual drives there are free space, so, why wouldn't my mounted drive shows free space? |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 19:11:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by JJSQLDBA
If I go to a mounted drive's property, it should shows the total used size for all the drives that are underneath it and should show the free space for all the drives as well, right? However, in my scenario, the mounted drive shows full, but if I go to individual drives there are free space, so, why wouldn't my mounted drive shows free space?
No it shouldn't show the total information as each is pointing to different disks. Each mount point will have its own set of total space and free space. Each must be monitored.Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/Subscribe to my blog |
|
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 19:27:16
|
| Thank you... that helped... |
|
|
|
JJSQLDBA
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2012-09-05 : 20:06:51
|
| So for a conclusion and people who read the posts, here is a summary and what I have learned from this particular issue and from the people who joined in this discussion here.I had a mounted drive where there was five other drives underneath it. When I checked the parent drive, lets call "X", there was no space. So I looked into each sub-drives underneath it(lets call Drive1, Drive2, Drive3,Drive4,Drive5) and there were free space available on each sub-drives. I backed up and truncated some logs and it freed up some space, but the parent drive('X')was still showing it was full. I wonder why. As per the discussion we had above, it gave me a clue that it may be because the sub-drives are mapped to different drives. Which I checked and it was true. And I came to know from the discussion that if the sub-drives are mapped to different drives it shouldn't show the total information on parental drive's("X") properties as each is pointing to different disks alsoEach mount point will have its own set of total space and free space. Each must be monitored.-Thank you for your participation in the discussion and helping me understand the issue. |
|
|
|
|
Space Issue