Whether it is appropriate to use a single SAN storage pool or create separate pool for SQL server?
My storage admin says that our SAN has 1 storage pool (set of physical RAID drives) that is shared by various servers and end-user vms.
I want to install a new SQL server instance on a volume created from this SAN. I was thinking that it will be nice to have a new dedicated storage pool only for the sql server. However, my storage admin has shared the below information (from Dell documentation) and is insisting upon creating the new volume for the sql server from the existing storage pool.
In general, it is recommended to use fewer storage pools within Dell EMC Unity arrays because this reduces complexity and increases flexibility. Dell EMC recommends using a single virtual disk pool when implementing SQL Server. This provides better performance by leveraging the aggregate I/O bandwidth of all disks to service I/O requests from SQL Server. A single drive pool is also easier to manage, allowing an administrator to quickly and easily adapt the storage system to satisfy the ever-changing workloads that are common in SQL Server environments. Before creating multiple storage pools to separate workloads, understand the various Dell EMC Unity features that are available for managing and throttling specific workloads.
Does anyone have experience with such a situation?
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think there's a misunderstanding by your storage admin. I read that quoted documentation from Dell as meaning not to split a single SQL Server instance across multiple storage pools, in order to maximize performance, which is a different question than "can a single storage pool be shared between a SQL Server instance and other servers".
I would think theoretically having it's own storage pool can't be any worse and can only be the same or better than sharing one with other servers. But if your disks are fast, your Memory is provisioned appropriately, and depending on the busyness of your SQL Server, I/O contention is starting to become much less of a bottleneck these days, in practice. So there may be no noticeable difference in sharing a storage pool. You could always start that way if your storage admin is adamant about it, and if you have cause of concern for I/O contention, benchmark it to prove out it's a problem. If it really is, then you have evidence you can use to argue for migrating the SQL Server instance to its own storage pool.
Either way, I'm definitely not an expert on infrastructure architecture, and you may find better answers asking this question on https://www.serverfault.com .