Guest Scott Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 trying to spec a new server for SQL. suggstting RAID1 SET1 for OS (2 x 146GB drives) and RAID3 SET2 for SQL and network drives. (3 x 1TB drives) Is this a good idea ?
Guest Leythos Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Re: suggested RAID In article <#Xo2bm5IIHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, s@yahoo.co.uk says... > trying to spec a new server for SQL. > > suggstting RAID1 SET1 for OS (2 x 146GB drives) > and RAID3 SET2 for SQL and network drives. (3 x 1TB drives) > > Is this a good idea ? RAID-1 OS (and misc OS tools) RAID-1 SQL Transaction Logs RAID-5 SQL Data bases and your misc RAID-1 On Server Backup Storage HOT Global Spare drive Since you didn't tell us about the needs, we can't really say, but 3 drives in a RAID-5 is the minimum and is not the best performance for a SQL database - 5 or more, for one that large, would be better - get smaller drives if you don't want all that space. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest WorkingHard Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Re: suggested RAID get raid 1 or raid 10 for the data as well so you will not have performance loss in case of diskfailure. Raid 5 for i/o intensive databases is a no go as it will ruin performance during rebuild. Writing is also not that great. For reading Raid 5 is fine. http://www.baarf.com start reading : http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.219f7dd8d046219f989830@adfree.usenet.com... > In article <#Xo2bm5IIHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, s@yahoo.co.uk > says... >> trying to spec a new server for SQL. >> >> suggstting RAID1 SET1 for OS (2 x 146GB drives) >> and RAID3 SET2 for SQL and network drives. (3 x 1TB drives) >> >> Is this a good idea ? > > RAID-1 OS (and misc OS tools) > RAID-1 SQL Transaction Logs > RAID-5 SQL Data bases and your misc > RAID-1 On Server Backup Storage > HOT Global Spare drive > > Since you didn't tell us about the needs, we can't really say, but 3 > drives in a RAID-5 is the minimum and is not the best performance for a > SQL database - 5 or more, for one that large, would be better - get > smaller drives if you don't want all that space. > > > -- > > Leythos > - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. > - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a > drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Leythos Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Re: suggested RAID In article <#EjWvB7IIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, WorkingHard@microsoftdiscussions.com says... > get raid 1 or raid 10 for the data as well so you will not have performance > loss in case of diskfailure. Raid 5 for i/o intensive databases is a no go > as it will ruin performance during rebuild. Writing is also not that great. > For reading Raid 5 is fine. He's already shown that he's not interested in performance by his initial plan. Loss of performance during a rebuild is a minimal thing if you have a quality controller. RAID-1+0 takes a serious hit on capacity. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest WorkingHard Posted November 11, 2007 Posted November 11, 2007 Re: suggested RAID That all depends on theneed. For better protection and performance even in the case of a failure he'll have four disks for the same disk space as with 3 in raid 5. It's a cost/benefit thing and if he's going to be running any I/O intensive apps on there like SQL or exchange he might want to reconsider if he has many concurrent users. Without knowing what he going to be running on that server and under what load we might a well give 'm all the options. "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.21a0014a3968b59b98983b@adfree.Usenet.com... > In article <#EjWvB7IIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, > WorkingHard@microsoftdiscussions.com says... >> get raid 1 or raid 10 for the data as well so you will not have >> performance >> loss in case of diskfailure. Raid 5 for i/o intensive databases is a no >> go >> as it will ruin performance during rebuild. Writing is also not that >> great. >> For reading Raid 5 is fine. > > He's already shown that he's not interested in performance by his > initial plan. Loss of performance during a rebuild is a minimal thing if > you have a quality controller. RAID-1+0 takes a serious hit on capacity. > > -- > > Leythos > - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. > - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a > drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Leythos Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Re: suggested RAID In article <eVi6VyGJIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, WorkingHard@microsoftdiscussions.com says... > That all depends on theneed. For better protection and performance even in > the case of a failure he'll have four disks for the same disk space as with > 3 in raid 5. > > It's a cost/benefit thing and if he's going to be running any I/O intensive > apps on there like SQL or exchange he might want to reconsider if he has > many concurrent users. Without knowing what he going to be running on that > server and under what load we might a well give 'm all the options. I agree. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Recommended Posts