DSO in SQL2005: configuration

Showing posts with label configuration. Show all posts

Friday, February 24, 2012

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

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

drive configuration for maximum performance

Using SS2000. We have 14 146G drives that are divided into 2 logical drives
of 7 physical drives each. I want maximum performance. Would a configuration
of 1 logical drive for all 14 physical drives of raid 10 be better? Or is
another configuration better?
Thanks,
Dan D.
I was told by a MS SQL guy at a conference once when I asked that question
this:
OS should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
DB should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
Logs should be on a RAID 0 mirrored group of two drives.
The two RAID 5 groups are because of the random nature of the data access
and the RAID 0 group because logs are written sequentially. The RAID 5
will give quicker random access and fault tolerance where the mirrored RAID
0 allows for fault tolerance and quicker sequential writes.
Regards,
John
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BFFE2FA1-F222-470E-AED6-0E6C25550F46@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000. We have 14 146G drives that are divided into 2 logical
> drives
> of 7 physical drives each. I want maximum performance. Would a
> configuration
> of 1 logical drive for all 14 physical drives of raid 10 be better? Or is
> another configuration better?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
|||From the research that I've done, using raid 5 versus raid 10 seems to be a
matter of whether you're doing a lot writes or not. For a system that does
more than 10% writes, raid 10 is supposed to be better because it is faster
when doing writes. We do a lot of data manipulation for direct mail files so
we're doing a lot of writes. raid 10 also seems to be more fault tolerant
because you can lose more than one drive in the array and still recover. I
think you can only lose one drive in a raid 5. So, for our situation I'm
reasonably sure that raid 10 is better than raid 5 for the data drives.
I was thinking that putting all 14 drives into one logical drive would give
us a lot more drive heads to go find the data than dividing the drives up
into two logical drives and therefore would be faster.
Thanks for the feedback,
Dan D.
"John J. Hughes II" wrote:

> I was told by a MS SQL guy at a conference once when I asked that question
> this:
> OS should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
> DB should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
> Logs should be on a RAID 0 mirrored group of two drives.
> The two RAID 5 groups are because of the random nature of the data access
> and the RAID 0 group because logs are written sequentially. The RAID 5
> will give quicker random access and fault tolerance where the mirrored RAID
> 0 allows for fault tolerance and quicker sequential writes.
> Regards,
> John
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BFFE2FA1-F222-470E-AED6-0E6C25550F46@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||RAID 10 is RAID 1 over RAID 0. The RAID 0 would give better throughput and
the RAID 1 mirror would give protection. I would not have a problem with
replacing the RAID 5 with a RAID 10 in the below configuration but I would
still suggest moving the OS and transaction log to two different RAID arrays
to increase performance.
But as they say it is your system, not mine and you are in a better position
to judge which configuration would give you better performance / usability
for your needs.
Regards,
John
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EDBD0576-C037-4EA4-82C1-07AFB8BAB668@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> From the research that I've done, using raid 5 versus raid 10 seems to be
> a
> matter of whether you're doing a lot writes or not. For a system that does
> more than 10% writes, raid 10 is supposed to be better because it is
> faster
> when doing writes. We do a lot of data manipulation for direct mail files
> so
> we're doing a lot of writes. raid 10 also seems to be more fault tolerant
> because you can lose more than one drive in the array and still recover. I
> think you can only lose one drive in a raid 5. So, for our situation I'm
> reasonably sure that raid 10 is better than raid 5 for the data drives.
> I was thinking that putting all 14 drives into one logical drive would
> give
> us a lot more drive heads to go find the data than dividing the drives up
> into two logical drives and therefore would be faster.
> Thanks for the feedback,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "John J. Hughes II" wrote:
|||I agree with you on that. I should have been more clear. We already have the
OS on a separate set of drives and the logs on another. I was only asking
about the data drives.
Thanks,
Dan D.
"John J. Hughes II" wrote:

> RAID 10 is RAID 1 over RAID 0. The RAID 0 would give better throughput and
> the RAID 1 mirror would give protection. I would not have a problem with
> replacing the RAID 5 with a RAID 10 in the below configuration but I would
> still suggest moving the OS and transaction log to two different RAID arrays
> to increase performance.
> But as they say it is your system, not mine and you are in a better position
> to judge which configuration would give you better performance / usability
> for your needs.
> Regards,
> John
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EDBD0576-C037-4EA4-82C1-07AFB8BAB668@.microsoft.com...
>
>

drive configuration for maximum performance

Using SS2000. We have 14 146G drives that are divided into 2 logical drives
of 7 physical drives each. I want maximum performance. Would a configuration
of 1 logical drive for all 14 physical drives of raid 10 be better? Or is
another configuration better?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.I was told by a MS SQL guy at a conference once when I asked that question
this:
OS should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
DB should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
Logs should be on a RAID 0 mirrored group of two drives.
The two RAID 5 groups are because of the random nature of the data access
and the RAID 0 group because logs are written sequentially. The RAID 5
will give quicker random access and fault tolerance where the mirrored RAID
0 allows for fault tolerance and quicker sequential writes.
Regards,
John
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BFFE2FA1-F222-470E-AED6-0E6C25550F46@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000. We have 14 146G drives that are divided into 2 logical
> drives
> of 7 physical drives each. I want maximum performance. Would a
> configuration
> of 1 logical drive for all 14 physical drives of raid 10 be better? Or is
> another configuration better?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||From the research that I've done, using raid 5 versus raid 10 seems to be a
matter of whether you're doing a lot writes or not. For a system that does
more than 10% writes, raid 10 is supposed to be better because it is faster
when doing writes. We do a lot of data manipulation for direct mail files so
we're doing a lot of writes. raid 10 also seems to be more fault tolerant
because you can lose more than one drive in the array and still recover. I
think you can only lose one drive in a raid 5. So, for our situation I'm
reasonably sure that raid 10 is better than raid 5 for the data drives.
I was thinking that putting all 14 drives into one logical drive would give
us a lot more drive heads to go find the data than dividing the drives up
into two logical drives and therefore would be faster.
Thanks for the feedback,
Dan D.
"John J. Hughes II" wrote:

> I was told by a MS SQL guy at a conference once when I asked that question
> this:
> OS should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
> DB should be on a RAID 5 drive group of at least 3 drives.
> Logs should be on a RAID 0 mirrored group of two drives.
> The two RAID 5 groups are because of the random nature of the data access
> and the RAID 0 group because logs are written sequentially. The RAID 5
> will give quicker random access and fault tolerance where the mirrored RAI
D
> 0 allows for fault tolerance and quicker sequential writes.
> Regards,
> John
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BFFE2FA1-F222-470E-AED6-0E6C25550F46@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||RAID 10 is RAID 1 over RAID 0. The RAID 0 would give better throughput and
the RAID 1 mirror would give protection. I would not have a problem with
replacing the RAID 5 with a RAID 10 in the below configuration but I would
still suggest moving the OS and transaction log to two different RAID arrays
to increase performance.
But as they say it is your system, not mine and you are in a better position
to judge which configuration would give you better performance / usability
for your needs.
Regards,
John
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EDBD0576-C037-4EA4-82C1-07AFB8BAB668@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> From the research that I've done, using raid 5 versus raid 10 seems to be
> a
> matter of whether you're doing a lot writes or not. For a system that does
> more than 10% writes, raid 10 is supposed to be better because it is
> faster
> when doing writes. We do a lot of data manipulation for direct mail files
> so
> we're doing a lot of writes. raid 10 also seems to be more fault tolerant
> because you can lose more than one drive in the array and still recover. I
> think you can only lose one drive in a raid 5. So, for our situation I'm
> reasonably sure that raid 10 is better than raid 5 for the data drives.
> I was thinking that putting all 14 drives into one logical drive would
> give
> us a lot more drive heads to go find the data than dividing the drives up
> into two logical drives and therefore would be faster.
> Thanks for the feedback,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "John J. Hughes II" wrote:
>|||I agree with you on that. I should have been more clear. We already have the
OS on a separate set of drives and the logs on another. I was only asking
about the data drives.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"John J. Hughes II" wrote:

> RAID 10 is RAID 1 over RAID 0. The RAID 0 would give better throughput an
d
> the RAID 1 mirror would give protection. I would not have a problem with
> replacing the RAID 5 with a RAID 10 in the below configuration but I would
> still suggest moving the OS and transaction log to two different RAID arra
ys
> to increase performance.
> But as they say it is your system, not mine and you are in a better positi
on
> to judge which configuration would give you better performance / usability
> for your needs.
> Regards,
> John
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EDBD0576-C037-4EA4-82C1-07AFB8BAB668@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Friday, February 24, 2012

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

drive configuration on new sql server 2005 box?

drive configuration for maximum performance

drive configuration for maximum performance

DSO in SQL2005

Blog Archive

About Me