Hard disk configuration question

I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers. The
objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and one other
database centric application. In addition rerporting services and analysis
services will also be installed. I have configured two of the RAID hard
disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as Drive C (30GB) and
the remaining as Drive D.
I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
Databases log files.
I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1 RAID5
Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of an issue
here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance. Which RAID
configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions or
recommendations?
Thank you,
ODMake the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and third
arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000 I'm
recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM disk if a)
the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and b) you have spare
memory in the box and c) if your application pattern after testing benefits
that approach (which stuff with heaving sorting, hashing, temp table usage
will) - see my blog entry: Put TEMPDB on a RAM DRIVE; Short lived # tables -
do they get written to disk?
(http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers. The
>objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and one
>other database centric application. In addition rerporting services and
>analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of the RAID
>hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as Drive C
>(30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
> Databases log files.
> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of an
> issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance. Which
> RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions or
> recommendations?
> Thank you,
> OD
>|||With 8 drives, my suggestion for best performance is:
Two Drives -RAID 1 (log files)
Three Drives RAID 0
Three Drives RAID 0
Mirror the above two RAID 0 sets, making a RAID 10.
Use the RAID 10 for OS and datafiles.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers. The
>objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and one
>other database centric application. In addition rerporting services and
>analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of the RAID
>hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as Drive C
>(30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
> Databases log files.
> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of an
> issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance. Which
> RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions or
> recommendations?
> Thank you,
> OD
>|||Thats RAID 01 which isn't as fault tolerant as RAID 10.
01 is striping and then mirroring the stripe; if a disk in the stripe fails
then your whole array is exposed and a single drive failure on the second
mirrored striped can cause the set to be unavailable.
10 is mirror the drives and then stripe across, if a disk in the stripe
fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for the
one that failed then you are ok.
Basically, you can lose more drives RAID 10 then with RAID 01.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:u3zHWl3yGHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> With 8 drives, my suggestion for best performance is:
> Two Drives -RAID 1 (log files)
> Three Drives RAID 0
> Three Drives RAID 0
> Mirror the above two RAID 0 sets, making a RAID 10.
> Use the RAID 10 for OS and datafiles.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers. The
>>objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and one
>>other database centric application. In addition rerporting services and
>>analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of the
>>RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as Drive C
>>(30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of an
>> issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance. Which
>> RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions or
>> recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>|||Thanks for the recomendation. Drive C and D are on the same RAID 1 set but
they are 2 different OS partition on the RAID Vitual Disk. Is it ok to
locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with other user create
data files?
here is what I will have:
-RAID 1: partitioned to DRIVE C (for System) and D (May be backup and other
media files).
-RAID 1: Partioned to E (for logs) and F: for backup
-RAID 10: Partioned to G and H for different data files
what do you think?
OD
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
news:eQ7X2i3yGHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Make the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
> Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
> Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and
> third arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000 I'm
> recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM disk if
> a) the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and b) you have
> spare memory in the box and c) if your application pattern after testing
> benefits that approach (which stuff with heaving sorting, hashing, temp
> table usage will) - see my blog entry: Put TEMPDB on a RAM DRIVE; Short
> lived # tables - do they get written to disk?
> (http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
> SQL Server Consultant
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers. The
>>objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and one
>>other database centric application. In addition rerporting services and
>>analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of the
>>RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as Drive C
>>(30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of an
>> issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance. Which
>> RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions or
>> recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>|||Hi OD,
> Is it ok to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with
> other user create data files?
Why? Your system should rarely ever page so disk performance to the RAID 1
array containing pagefile.sys should not be a problem - better to utilise
it, if your box is paging (thereby causing IO to that RAID 1 array) then you
have other memory problems to solve first anyway, by using D: you aren't
touching the logical system drive so you will have enough space to put the
pagefile.sys (fix this rather than allow OS to grow it).
Think of tempdb in the same way you think of a database transaction log.
Why have RAID 10 partitioned as G and H? Just make it one logical drive -
drive G:
Again, why partition RAID 1 as E: and F: - just make it one logical drive -
drive E:
When you format the partitions in NT, format them NTFS but give it an
allocation size that matches your RAID stripe size, its usually 64K.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWT2923yGHA.4232@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the recomendation. Drive C and D are on the same RAID 1 set but
> they are 2 different OS partition on the RAID Vitual Disk. Is it ok to
> locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with other user create
> data files?
> here is what I will have:
> -RAID 1: partitioned to DRIVE C (for System) and D (May be backup and
> other media files).
> -RAID 1: Partioned to E (for logs) and F: for backup
> -RAID 10: Partioned to G and H for different data files
> what do you think?
> OD
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:eQ7X2i3yGHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Make the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
>> Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
>> Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and
>> third arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000
>> I'm recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM disk
>> if a) the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and b) you
>> have spare memory in the box and c) if your application pattern after
>> testing benefits that approach (which stuff with heaving sorting,
>> hashing, temp table usage will) - see my blog entry: Put TEMPDB on a RAM
>> DRIVE; Short lived # tables - do they get written to disk?
>> (http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>|||Thanks Tony, for the additional information.
However, as I was apt to do in my many Econ classes, I love to challenge the
assumptions. Anytime there is an 'IF', as in:
"if a disk in the stripe
fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for
the
one that failed then you are ok"
It seems mirrored stripes AND stripped mirrors are both vulnerable to
multiple drive failures. However, as you indicated, the stripped mirrors
seem to provide a little bit more of a element of chance to which mirrored
drive fails, whereas with mirrored stripes, failure in the mirror is certain
'death'.
One could posit that all of society survives on the element of chance.
Another day, another useful bit of information gleaned.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
news:uoxYHr3yGHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thats RAID 01 which isn't as fault tolerant as RAID 10.
> 01 is striping and then mirroring the stripe; if a disk in the stripe
> fails then your whole array is exposed and a single drive failure on the
> second mirrored striped can cause the set to be unavailable.
> 10 is mirror the drives and then stripe across, if a disk in the stripe
> fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for the
> one that failed then you are ok.
> Basically, you can lose more drives RAID 10 then with RAID 01.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
> SQL Server Consultant
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
> news:u3zHWl3yGHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> With 8 drives, my suggestion for best performance is:
>> Two Drives -RAID 1 (log files)
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Mirror the above two RAID 0 sets, making a RAID 10.
>> Use the RAID 10 for OS and datafiles.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>|||Thank you all for the assistance. In that case, I will stick with your
earlier advice as so:
First RAID 1
--C: ->System and Binary
--D: -> TempDB
Second Raid 1
--E: -> LOGS + Backup
RAID 10
--F: Data files
Now that the DB spaces have been figured out will it be ok (performance
wise) for one of Drives D, E or F to also hold other data such as Word and
Excel files that are generated by one of the appliations?
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
news:uzfHy73yGHA.5048@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi OD,
>> Is it ok to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with
>> other user create data files?
> Why? Your system should rarely ever page so disk performance to the RAID 1
> array containing pagefile.sys should not be a problem - better to utilise
> it, if your box is paging (thereby causing IO to that RAID 1 array) then
> you have other memory problems to solve first anyway, by using D: you
> aren't touching the logical system drive so you will have enough space to
> put the pagefile.sys (fix this rather than allow OS to grow it).
> Think of tempdb in the same way you think of a database transaction log.
> Why have RAID 10 partitioned as G and H? Just make it one logical drive -
> drive G:
> Again, why partition RAID 1 as E: and F: - just make it one logical
> drive - drive E:
> When you format the partitions in NT, format them NTFS but give it an
> allocation size that matches your RAID stripe size, its usually 64K.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
> SQL Server Consultant
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eWT2923yGHA.4232@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the recomendation. Drive C and D are on the same RAID 1 set
>> but they are 2 different OS partition on the RAID Vitual Disk. Is it ok
>> to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with other user
>> create data files?
>> here is what I will have:
>> -RAID 1: partitioned to DRIVE C (for System) and D (May be backup and
>> other media files).
>> -RAID 1: Partioned to E (for logs) and F: for backup
>> -RAID 10: Partioned to G and H for different data files
>> what do you think?
>> OD
>>
>> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
>> news:eQ7X2i3yGHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Make the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
>> Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
>> Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and
>> third arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000
>> I'm recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM
>> disk if a) the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and b)
>> you have spare memory in the box and c) if your application pattern
>> after testing benefits that approach (which stuff with heaving sorting,
>> hashing, temp table usage will) - see my blog entry: Put TEMPDB on a RAM
>> DRIVE; Short lived # tables - do they get written to disk?
>> (http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>>
>|||You raise a good point.
Something else I've seen is that all the onboard SATA RAID controllers I've
seen so far implement RAID 01, so if you want RAID 10 you must RAID 1 the
drives first and then use Windows to stripe across the drives.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:e9%23BGC4yGHA.4968@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tony, for the additional information.
> However, as I was apt to do in my many Econ classes, I love to challenge
> the assumptions. Anytime there is an 'IF', as in:
> "if a disk in the stripe
> fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for
> the
> one that failed then you are ok"
> It seems mirrored stripes AND stripped mirrors are both vulnerable to
> multiple drive failures. However, as you indicated, the stripped mirrors
> seem to provide a little bit more of a element of chance to which mirrored
> drive fails, whereas with mirrored stripes, failure in the mirror is
> certain 'death'.
> One could posit that all of society survives on the element of chance.
> Another day, another useful bit of information gleaned.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:uoxYHr3yGHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thats RAID 01 which isn't as fault tolerant as RAID 10.
>> 01 is striping and then mirroring the stripe; if a disk in the stripe
>> fails then your whole array is exposed and a single drive failure on the
>> second mirrored striped can cause the set to be unavailable.
>> 10 is mirror the drives and then stripe across, if a disk in the stripe
>> fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for
>> the one that failed then you are ok.
>> Basically, you can lose more drives RAID 10 then with RAID 01.
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
>> news:u3zHWl3yGHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> With 8 drives, my suggestion for best performance is:
>> Two Drives -RAID 1 (log files)
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Mirror the above two RAID 0 sets, making a RAID 10.
>> Use the RAID 10 for OS and datafiles.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>>
>|||I am running a DELL PERC 5 RAID controller and it explains this same thing.
However, it only allows configuration for RAIDs 0, 1, 5, and 10. So I have
configured the last 4 drives as RAID 10 since it's the only option supported
on the controller between RAID 01 and RAID 10.
thank you for your assistance.
OD
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:e9%23BGC4yGHA.4968@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tony, for the additional information.
> However, as I was apt to do in my many Econ classes, I love to challenge
> the assumptions. Anytime there is an 'IF', as in:
> "if a disk in the stripe
> fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for
> the
> one that failed then you are ok"
> It seems mirrored stripes AND stripped mirrors are both vulnerable to
> multiple drive failures. However, as you indicated, the stripped mirrors
> seem to provide a little bit more of a element of chance to which mirrored
> drive fails, whereas with mirrored stripes, failure in the mirror is
> certain 'death'.
> One could posit that all of society survives on the element of chance.
> Another day, another useful bit of information gleaned.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:uoxYHr3yGHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thats RAID 01 which isn't as fault tolerant as RAID 10.
>> 01 is striping and then mirroring the stripe; if a disk in the stripe
>> fails then your whole array is exposed and a single drive failure on the
>> second mirrored striped can cause the set to be unavailable.
>> 10 is mirror the drives and then stripe across, if a disk in the stripe
>> fails then so long as a disk in the mirror stripe isn't the mirror for
>> the one that failed then you are ok.
>> Basically, you can lose more drives RAID 10 then with RAID 01.
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
>> news:u3zHWl3yGHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> With 8 drives, my suggestion for best performance is:
>> Two Drives -RAID 1 (log files)
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Three Drives RAID 0
>> Mirror the above two RAID 0 sets, making a RAID 10.
>> Use the RAID 10 for OS and datafiles.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>>
>|||> Now that the DB spaces have been figured out will it be ok (performance
> wise) for one of Drives D, E or F to also hold other data such as Word and
> Excel files that are generated by one of the appliations?
Depends on the volume, if you have an application that is continuously
knocking out files then I'd advise something else, but if its just a file
server then you need to ask yourself how often are files read or written
to/from and that will answer your question, I'd probably put the files on
the RAID 10 array because you really need the IO bandwidth for the
checkpoint process or when dirty pages are being written out.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u%23XUZD4yGHA.3552@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Thank you all for the assistance. In that case, I will stick with your
> earlier advice as so:
> First RAID 1
> --C: ->System and Binary
> --D: -> TempDB
> Second Raid 1
> --E: -> LOGS + Backup
> RAID 10
> --F: Data files
> Now that the DB spaces have been figured out will it be ok (performance
> wise) for one of Drives D, E or F to also hold other data such as Word and
> Excel files that are generated by one of the appliations?
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:uzfHy73yGHA.5048@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi OD,
>> Is it ok to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with
>> other user create data files?
>> Why? Your system should rarely ever page so disk performance to the RAID
>> 1 array containing pagefile.sys should not be a problem - better to
>> utilise it, if your box is paging (thereby causing IO to that RAID 1
>> array) then you have other memory problems to solve first anyway, by
>> using D: you aren't touching the logical system drive so you will have
>> enough space to put the pagefile.sys (fix this rather than allow OS to
>> grow it).
>> Think of tempdb in the same way you think of a database transaction log.
>> Why have RAID 10 partitioned as G and H? Just make it one logical drive -
>> drive G:
>> Again, why partition RAID 1 as E: and F: - just make it one logical
>> drive - drive E:
>> When you format the partitions in NT, format them NTFS but give it an
>> allocation size that matches your RAID stripe size, its usually 64K.
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eWT2923yGHA.4232@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the recomendation. Drive C and D are on the same RAID 1 set
>> but they are 2 different OS partition on the RAID Vitual Disk. Is it ok
>> to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with other user
>> create data files?
>> here is what I will have:
>> -RAID 1: partitioned to DRIVE C (for System) and D (May be backup and
>> other media files).
>> -RAID 1: Partioned to E (for logs) and F: for backup
>> -RAID 10: Partioned to G and H for different data files
>> what do you think?
>> OD
>>
>> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
>> news:eQ7X2i3yGHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Make the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
>> Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
>> Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and
>> third arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000
>> I'm recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM
>> disk if a) the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and
>> b) you have spare memory in the box and c) if your application pattern
>> after testing benefits that approach (which stuff with heaving sorting,
>> hashing, temp table usage will) - see my blog entry: Put TEMPDB on a
>> RAM DRIVE; Short lived # tables - do they get written to disk?
>> (http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from
>> a SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting services
>>and analysis services will also be installed. I have configured two of
>>the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System partition on it as
>>Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much of
>> an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible performance.
>> Which RAID configuration is better for the data files? Any suggestions
>> or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>>
>>
>|||Thank you Annie and Tony. You have helped a lot and saved me sometime. I
will go ahead and drop the Excel and Word files on the RAID 10 temporarily
and if there is a performance issue I will add more hard drives and move
them.
Thanks again!.
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
news:O4VKpL4yGHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Now that the DB spaces have been figured out will it be ok (performance
>> wise) for one of Drives D, E or F to also hold other data such as Word
>> and Excel files that are generated by one of the appliations?
> Depends on the volume, if you have an application that is continuously
> knocking out files then I'd advise something else, but if its just a file
> server then you need to ask yourself how often are files read or written
> to/from and that will answer your question, I'd probably put the files on
> the RAID 10 array because you really need the IO bandwidth for the
> checkpoint process or when dirty pages are being written out.
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
> SQL Server Consultant
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u%23XUZD4yGHA.3552@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Thank you all for the assistance. In that case, I will stick with your
>> earlier advice as so:
>> First RAID 1
>> --C: ->System and Binary
>> --D: -> TempDB
>> Second Raid 1
>> --E: -> LOGS + Backup
>> RAID 10
>> --F: Data files
>> Now that the DB spaces have been figured out will it be ok (performance
>> wise) for one of Drives D, E or F to also hold other data such as Word
>> and Excel files that are generated by one of the appliations?
>>
>> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
>> news:uzfHy73yGHA.5048@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi OD,
>> Is it ok to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with
>> other user create data files?
>> Why? Your system should rarely ever page so disk performance to the RAID
>> 1 array containing pagefile.sys should not be a problem - better to
>> utilise it, if your box is paging (thereby causing IO to that RAID 1
>> array) then you have other memory problems to solve first anyway, by
>> using D: you aren't touching the logical system drive so you will have
>> enough space to put the pagefile.sys (fix this rather than allow OS to
>> grow it).
>> Think of tempdb in the same way you think of a database transaction log.
>> Why have RAID 10 partitioned as G and H? Just make it one logical
>> drive - drive G:
>> Again, why partition RAID 1 as E: and F: - just make it one logical
>> drive - drive E:
>> When you format the partitions in NT, format them NTFS but give it an
>> allocation size that matches your RAID stripe size, its usually 64K.
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a
>> SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eWT2923yGHA.4232@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the recomendation. Drive C and D are on the same RAID 1 set
>> but they are 2 different OS partition on the RAID Vitual Disk. Is it ok
>> to locate the Data files for Tempdb on the RAID 10 set with other user
>> create data files?
>> here is what I will have:
>> -RAID 1: partitioned to DRIVE C (for System) and D (May be backup and
>> other media files).
>> -RAID 1: Partioned to E (for logs) and F: for backup
>> -RAID 10: Partioned to G and H for different data files
>> what do you think?
>> OD
>>
>> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
>> news:eQ7X2i3yGHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Make the 4 hard drives RAID 10 (mirror then striping).
>> Don't even touch RAID 5 with a barge poll now-a-days.
>> Put tempdb on the D: on its own RAID 1 array away from the second and
>> third arrays, tempdb in SQL 2005 is more heavily used but even in 2000
>> I'm recommending it has its own uncontended array and even use a RAM
>> disk if a) the RAM disk fully supports SQL Server IO requirements and
>> b) you have spare memory in the box and c) if your application pattern
>> after testing benefits that approach (which stuff with heaving
>> sorting, hashing, temp table usage will) - see my blog entry: Put
>> TEMPDB on a RAM DRIVE; Short lived # tables - do they get written to
>> disk?
>> (http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/24/958.aspx)
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from
>> a SQL Server Consultant
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>>
>> "OD" <oludan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePVRL72yGHA.4844@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I just acquire a new server with 8 hard drives and 2 RAID controllers.
>>The objective is to load SQL SERVER 2005 on this server to run CRM and
>>one other database centric application. In addition rerporting
>>services and analysis services will also be installed. I have
>>configured two of the RAID hard disks as RAID1 and created the System
>>partition on it as Drive C (30GB) and the remaining as Drive D.
>> I configured another 2 as RAID1 (67GB) which I intend to use for the
>> Databases log files.
>> I now have 4 hard disks left. I can either configure this drives as 1
>> RAID5 Vitual Disk or 2 RAID1 Vitual Disk.Since space is not so much
>> of an issue here, I am trying to achieve the best possible
>> performance. Which RAID configuration is better for the data files?
>> Any suggestions or recommendations?
>> Thank you,
>> OD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>