drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
Shelly CampbellThis will give you some ideas
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx
In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
post it as it is for subscribers only
http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Article/ArticleID/46492/46492.html#
In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
Farmer.
"mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
>I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Hi Shelly:
OS should always stay on RAID 1. No Exceptions should be made here.
For SQL Data, You can use RAID 5 if you wish to though RAID 5 is not the
best solution. For Faster Read\Write RAID 10 is the best solution but then it
has a cost attached to its performance.
Since you have 4x146 GB Drives on the machine, I would recommend that buy
another couple of drives identical in size and host RAID 1 on it and use it
for OS.
For other 4 drives set up RAID 5 and use them for SQL data and log.
Hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||Thanks! This helps.
"Farmer" wrote:
> This will give you some ideas
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx
> In BOL, index tab, type NTFS, see note.
> SQL Server magazine had a good article on hardware for SQL Server . I can't
> post it as it is for subscribers only
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServer/Article/ArticleID/46492/46492.html#
> In the nutshell, system = RAID1, logs = RAID1, data = case when cash poor
> then RAID5 else RAID10 end.
>
> Farmer.
> "mp3nomad" <mp3nomad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1923B0A6-06A2-4041-850A-C692718D54AB@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is
> > going
> > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> >
> > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> >
> > Shelly Campbell
>
>|||Thanks Mark.
Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> Shelly Campbell|||NO, this set up is not acceptable.
If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
minimum of 2 drives.
Here is what you need to remember:
RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
I hope this helps.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> Thanks Mark.
> Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> >
> > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> >
> > Shelly Campbell|||I see. Ok.
Where would the transaction logs go? On the same RAID volume with the OS?
"Mark" wrote:
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > Thanks Mark.
> >
> > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> >
> > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> >
> > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > >
> > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > >
> > > Shelly Campbell|||currently the server is configured as follows:
4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
(remainder of space)
Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
nothing else installed as yet
I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
I appreciate your assistance.
Shelly
"Mark" wrote:
> NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> minimum of 2 drives.
> Here is what you need to remember:
> RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> I hope this helps.
>
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > Thanks Mark.
> >
> > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> >
> > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> >
> > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > >
> > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > >
> > > Shelly Campbell|||Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> currently the server is configured as follows:
> 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> (remainder of space)
> Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> nothing else installed as yet
> I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> I appreciate your assistance.
> Shelly
> "Mark" wrote:
> > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> >
> > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > minimum of 2 drives.
> >
> > Here is what you need to remember:
> > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> >
> > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> >
> > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> >
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Mark.
> > >
> > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > >
> > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > >
> > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > >
> > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > >
> > > > Shelly Campbell|||ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
hardware we can afford to purchase.
"Mark" wrote:
> Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > currently the server is configured as follows:
> >
> > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > (remainder of space)
> >
> > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> >
> > nothing else installed as yet
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> >
> > I appreciate your assistance.
> >
> > Shelly
> >
> > "Mark" wrote:
> >
> > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > >
> > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > >
> > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > >
> > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > >
> > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > >
> > > I hope this helps.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > >
> > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > >
> > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shelly Campbell|||Maybe this is a little out of the box on this one...
In the future I would order smaller drives and more of them. Lets say that
you have the 4 of 146s If you have the drive bays how about 10 72's. Raid
this in pairs as RAID 1. This way you have 5 drive letters where you can
table partition your storage for a better performance.
I know this sounds odd. But I have found that smaller faster drives =better read times.
--Chris Shaw
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
> hardware we can afford to purchase.
> "Mark" wrote:
> > Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > currently the server is configured as follows:
> > >
> > > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > > (remainder of space)
> > >
> > > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> > >
> > > nothing else installed as yet
> > >
> > > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> > >
> > > I appreciate your assistance.
> > >
> > > Shelly
> > >
> > > "Mark" wrote:
> > >
> > > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > > >
> > > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shelly Campbell|||Chris Shaw wrote:
> Maybe this is a little out of the box on this one...
> In the future I would order smaller drives and more of them. Lets say that
> you have the 4 of 146s If you have the drive bays how about 10 72's. Raid
> this in pairs as RAID 1. This way you have 5 drive letters where you can
> table partition your storage for a better performance.
> I know this sounds odd. But I have found that smaller faster drives => better read times.
> --Chris Shaw
>
It's not the drive size as such that makes it faster but the number of
heads available for operation. Having a RAID with 10 146GB disks might
not be slower than a RAID with 10 72 GB disk. Of course there can be
various differences in design (number of plates etc.) but I think that
will makes a difference that is mostly theoretically.
The general rule of thumb is that you should get as many and as fast
disks as possible.
To get back on topic, I agree that a SQL server with only 4 disks is a
no Win situation in many cases. Another possibility could be to setup 2
RAID 1 arrays, but no matter how you configure it with OS, logfiles and
datafiles, you won't have the optimal setup.
In your case where you need it for a web application, it might be ok
though, but it depends on your need of recovery and availability on the
web server. We have a SQL server that host the database for one of our
web applications and here we restore a new database each night. The
database is also only used for read operations. On this server we run a
RAID1 for OS and a RAID 5 that contains both logfiles and datafiles. I'd
never do this on a server with critical data, but in this case where we
just can restore a new database it doesn't matter. Maybe your setup is
something similar and in that case I think it could be justified to put
log and data files on the same RAID.
Regards
Steen|||thanks for your support!
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> ok. thanks! we're trying to configure this box the best we can based on the
> hardware we can afford to purchase.
> "Mark" wrote:
> > Do not put log on same drive where the OS is.
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > currently the server is configured as follows:
> > >
> > > 4 146 gb drives in RAID 5 container partitioned as C:\ (30 gb) and D:\
> > > (remainder of space)
> > >
> > > Windows Server 2003 w/ SP1 installed on C:\ partition
> > >
> > > nothing else installed as yet
> > >
> > > I'm trying to figure out if this setup is ok and then just add an additional
> > > RAID 1 array for the transaction logs?
> > >
> > > I appreciate your assistance.
> > >
> > > Shelly
> > >
> > > "Mark" wrote:
> > >
> > > > NO, this set up is not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only one drive for OS, if the drive fails, everything is gone.
> > > > Therefore, you must, must, and must use RAID 1 for OS which will involve a
> > > > minimum of 2 drives.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what you need to remember:
> > > > RAID 1 requires at least 2 drives.
> > > > Raid 5 requires at least 3 drives.
> > > >
> > > > If you use only 1 drive as you are mentionining, you can only build RAID 0
> > > > on it which gives no protection against data recovery.
> > > >
> > > > I would say based on your server since it's not on SAN, use 2 drives for
> > > > RAID 1 and set up OS on it and use 4 drives for RAID 5 and set up SQL Data on
> > > > it. SQL Binaries can say on the same RAID Volume where OS resides.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we're kind of tight on funds, I'm going to setup the drives as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 separate 36 gb drive for OS and SQL Server program install.
> > > > > 1 separate 146 gb drive for Tlogs.
> > > > > 3 146 gb disks in RAID 5 array for data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this look acceptable? Not the best, but acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a new dell 2850 server with 4 146gb drives attached to a raid 5
> > > > > > controller. I would like to know how I should setup the drives for
> > > > > > installation of server 2003 std os and sql server 2005. This server is going
> > > > > > to be a dedicated sql server to serve databases for web applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and let me know if I should supply any additional info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shelly Campbell