Hardware requirements

I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
How about the processor's and RAM?
Thanks,
ScottWell you need to keep the following in mind:
1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
2. For each logical write, the following applies:
RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
(MicrosoftPress).
Sasan
"Scott A" wrote:
> I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> How about the processor's and RAM?
> Thanks,
> Scott|||Thanks Susan. I forgot to add that we have about 70 users on Exchange and our
new SQL database will have 5-10 users on at any given time. Does this make a
difference at all?
Thanks,
Scott
"Sasan Saidi" wrote:
> Well you need to keep the following in mind:
> 1. One I/O per logical read is required on all RAIDS (0,1,10,5)
> 2. For each logical write, the following applies:
> RAID 1: 2 I/Os.
> RAID 5: 4 I/Os.
> Based on the analysis of requirements that you have done (or should do!),
> you can decide what is the most appropriate. Typically, a database
> transaction log is put on a RAID 1 since 95%+ of all transactions of a
> transaction log are WRITEs and you do not want to go for a RAID 5 if
> possible. Cost wise RAID 1 will cost you more. Now, if you should have
> Exchange and SQL on the same box is another topic but ultimately it depends
> on the load you are expecting on the server. I personally don't like running
> anything else on a SQL Server machine. Also keep in mind that SQL Server 2000
> Standard will not use more than 2 GBs of ram.
> The decision you will make can be critical for your business and I suggest
> you read on Capacity planning in SQL Server Administrator Companion
> (MicrosoftPress).
> Sasan
>
> "Scott A" wrote:
> > I am going to buy a new server that will be running Windows 2003 Server,
> > Exchange 2003 & SQL 2000. I was looking at a server with dual Xeon 3.6Ghz
> > processors with 2GB RAM & RAID 5 but I was told that I should use RAID 1
> > instead of RAID 5. Is this true that RAID 1 will work better with this setup
> > or am I being mis-informed and why would RAID 1 be better than RAID 5?
> >
> > How about the processor's and RAM?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott