DSO in SQL2005: raid

Showing posts with label raid. Show all posts

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Drives on Server and How to Define Raid for them

We are looking for advise. I know that there is no right or wrong answer. "It
depends."
We currently have a server with the OS as Windows Server 2003 SP2 and SQL
Server 2000 SP3. This Server has 6 physical drives; only 3 of these physical
drives are being used. These 3 physical drives are 1 container with Raid 5.
This 1 container is divided into 3 logical drives.
We would like to fill the other 3 physical drive slots and create another
container. We were thinking of making this Raid 1.
I should put in my disclaimer that Raid 10 is out of the question and so is
SAN. The company just doesn't have the money.
Is Raid 1 the best choice? This is my first question.
Next is how should we split up the files among the containers.
For example, OS, log and swap file on container 1 with Raid 1 and datafiles
on container 2 with Raid 5?
What are most people doing? Is there a standard? Can people provide examples
of what they are doing or provide suggestions?
Is there a microsoft recommendation for a windows server 2003/sql server
2000 with 6 physical drives on how the drives and raid should be set up? Is
there a cook book recipe? My management wants facts. They want certified
microsoft documentation on this subject.
I was thinking what if some type of external drive could be attached. The
first container of 3 physical drives could be Raid5 and the second container
of 3 physical drives could be Raid 1 and then the external drive could be
Raid 0 for tempdb. Maybe this is a bad idea?If you can completely redo the server from the ground up I would do consider
either a) raid1 set for OS/apps/pagefile and a raid10 set for all sql server
data and log files (with perhaps tempdb on the raid 1 or b) raid1 same as
above but make 4 remaining drives a raid5 set if you need the space or if
read performance is key.
if you can redo from scratch then if you want all 3 new drives involved in
raid to prevent single-disk-failure issue then you are pretty much stuck
with raid5 and it's inherent write performance issue. You could go with 2
disk raid1 and use the third drive alone as a backup drive. That sounds
pretty good.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"lcerni" <lcerni@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:410EFCF8-8D93-4722-A689-CAE1BF237A9B@.microsoft.com...
> We are looking for advise. I know that there is no right or wrong answer.
> "It
> depends."
> We currently have a server with the OS as Windows Server 2003 SP2 and SQL
> Server 2000 SP3. This Server has 6 physical drives; only 3 of these
> physical
> drives are being used. These 3 physical drives are 1 container with Raid
> 5.
> This 1 container is divided into 3 logical drives.
> We would like to fill the other 3 physical drive slots and create another
> container. We were thinking of making this Raid 1.
> I should put in my disclaimer that Raid 10 is out of the question and so
> is
> SAN. The company just doesn't have the money.
> Is Raid 1 the best choice? This is my first question.
> Next is how should we split up the files among the containers.
> For example, OS, log and swap file on container 1 with Raid 1 and
> datafiles
> on container 2 with Raid 5?
> What are most people doing? Is there a standard? Can people provide
> examples
> of what they are doing or provide suggestions?
> Is there a microsoft recommendation for a windows server 2003/sql server
> 2000 with 6 physical drives on how the drives and raid should be set up?
> Is
> there a cook book recipe? My management wants facts. They want certified
> microsoft documentation on this subject.
> I was thinking what if some type of external drive could be attached. The
> first container of 3 physical drives could be Raid5 and the second
> container
> of 3 physical drives could be Raid 1 and then the external drive could be
> Raid 0 for tempdb. Maybe this is a bad idea?|||There is no way to document what you should have because there are too many
factors to be considered. Mainly it comes down to how you use your database,
how the server overall is configured and what your transactions rates will
be. If you have a very low volume server then having it all on one Raid 5
may be fine. But as you get into higher transactions rates or more data
manipulation you will eventually need to split the logs onto another
physical array. Adding a Raid 1 for the OS /Swap file / Logs is probably
fine if this is not a large system and if you have enough memory to avoid
lots of direct disk access. But I don't recommend creating multiple logical
drives on either the Raid 5 or the Raid 1. That would do nothing for
performance and leave you with the possibility you may run out of room on
any one of the logical drives. One last comment. You said no Raid 10 but
you will have 1 slot left if you do 3 Disk Raid 5 and 2 disk Raid 1. You can
make a 4 disk Raid 10 and a 2 disk Raid 1. Or you can add the other drive to
the Raid 5 which would give better performance over the 3 disk Raid 5.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"lcerni" <lcerni@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:410EFCF8-8D93-4722-A689-CAE1BF237A9B@.microsoft.com...
> We are looking for advise. I know that there is no right or wrong answer.
> "It
> depends."
> We currently have a server with the OS as Windows Server 2003 SP2 and SQL
> Server 2000 SP3. This Server has 6 physical drives; only 3 of these
> physical
> drives are being used. These 3 physical drives are 1 container with Raid
> 5.
> This 1 container is divided into 3 logical drives.
> We would like to fill the other 3 physical drive slots and create another
> container. We were thinking of making this Raid 1.
> I should put in my disclaimer that Raid 10 is out of the question and so
> is
> SAN. The company just doesn't have the money.
> Is Raid 1 the best choice? This is my first question.
> Next is how should we split up the files among the containers.
> For example, OS, log and swap file on container 1 with Raid 1 and
> datafiles
> on container 2 with Raid 5?
> What are most people doing? Is there a standard? Can people provide
> examples
> of what they are doing or provide suggestions?
> Is there a microsoft recommendation for a windows server 2003/sql server
> 2000 with 6 physical drives on how the drives and raid should be set up?
> Is
> there a cook book recipe? My management wants facts. They want certified
> microsoft documentation on this subject.
> I was thinking what if some type of external drive could be attached. The
> first container of 3 physical drives could be Raid5 and the second
> container
> of 3 physical drives could be Raid 1 and then the external drive could be
> Raid 0 for tempdb. Maybe this is a bad idea?

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

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Drives on Server and How to Define Raid for them

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?

DSO in SQL2005

Blog Archive

About Me