Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
non-stop.
So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
options would that give me for RAID ?
Thanks
FrankHi Frank
Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Kejser
M.Sc, MCDBA
"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>|||Its OLTP
Thanks
Frank
"Thomas Kejser" <thomas@.kejser.org> wrote in message
news:OhLA5I09EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Frank
> Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
> The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely
> Thomas Kejser
> M.Sc, MCDBA
>
> "Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
> news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
A quick search through the NG will give you this answer. Here it is again
however...
RAID Levels and SQL Server:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e..._tun_1_87jm.asp
Comparing Different Implementations of RAID Levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e..._tun_1_79pv.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
non-stop.
So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
options would that give me for RAID ?
Thanks
Frank
Hi Frank
Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Kejser
M.Sc, MCDBA
"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
|||Its OLTP
Thanks
Frank
"Thomas Kejser" <thomas@.kejser.org> wrote in message
news:OhLA5I09EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Frank
> Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
> The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely
> Thomas Kejser
> M.Sc, MCDBA
>
> "Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
> news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
A quick search through the NG will give you this answer. Here it is again
however...
RAID Levels and SQL Server:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...tun_1_87jm.asp
Comparing Different Implementations of RAID Levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...tun_1_79pv.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
non-stop.
So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
options would that give me for RAID ?
Thanks
FrankNormally I would give a detailed answer to this but home
time here and I give a life to somebody.
Email me on peternolan67REMOVETHIS@.hotmail.com, nd I wil
go through all the options, rather than the best, its more
a case of the best for your circumstances.
Peter
MCDBA
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going
to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it
didn't happen."
Winston Churchill
>--Original Message--
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new
machine.
>The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more
or less nothing
>about RAID). My database has one table in particular
which is hammered
>non-stop.
>So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk,
the transaction
>log on another and the data file on another. Does this
make sense and what
>options would that give me for RAID ?
>Thanks
>Frank
>
>.
>|||Hi Frank
Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Kejser
M.Sc, MCDBA
"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>|||Its OLTP
Thanks
Frank
"Thomas Kejser" <thomas@.kejser.org> wrote in message
news:OhLA5I09EHA.3236@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Frank
> Is your database and OLTP or an OLAP system?
> The strategy for RAID is highly dependent on you query types.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely
> Thomas Kejser
> M.Sc, MCDBA
>
> "Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
> news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
>> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
>> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
>> non-stop.
>> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
>> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and
>> what options would that give me for RAID ?
>> Thanks
>> Frank
>>
>|||"Frank Ashley" <aa@.aa.com> wrote in message
news:O9woh4y9EHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need some help with configuring SQL2K on a brand new machine.
> The machine has 6 disks. RAIDx is required (I know more or less nothing
> about RAID). My database has one table in particular which is hammered
> non-stop.
> So, I put the table that is used incessantly on one disk, the transaction
> log on another and the data file on another. Does this make sense and what
> options would that give me for RAID ?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
A quick search through the NG will give you this answer. Here it is again
however...
RAID Levels and SQL Server:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_87jm.asp
Comparing Different Implementations of RAID Levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/optimsql/odp_tun_1_79pv.asp
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA

Hardware planning for growth

We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
planning accordingly.
What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
current needs, and add to it as needed.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
-Dan
Hi
In effect, you can only plan for the next 3-4 years. By then, the current
disk subsystems will need to be retired.
In effect, you need about 150Gb for Data and probably 400Gb for backups
during this period. A few 147Gb drives will do the job nicely.
For best performance have a seperate SCSI controller for the logs, backup
and data drives. You may want to split the data up into 2 drive sets to get
better throughput.
With the size and price of drives, do you really need RAID-5? What about
RAD-10? The write performance is just so much better.
Do you need high abailabilty? If so, you need to look at Windows Clusters.
This will guide you in the direction of the drive enclosure as it will need
to be a SAN. EMC has a few nice babies.
Regards
Mike
"Dan" wrote:

> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan
|||Hi Dan,
Statistically speaking the company you are working for will not be in
business in 10 years! Anyhow. Let me tell you what I did for one of our
businesses that had a quad-processor (700 MHZ) server running SQL Server:
1-got a dual processor (3 GHZ) server.
2-Got 15000 RPM drives (50% in disk speed increase right of the bat!)
3-Created 3 RAID 1 arrays: one for OS, one for DB and one of transaction
log. Make sure that your controller supports split seeks, which devides the
read I/Os among the mirrored pair, allowing two disks to seek simultaneously.
Ideally you can use RAID 10.
4-be carefull with the edition of SQL Server. The server edition will limit
SQL to use a max. of 2 GB. Also, you will not be able to create indexes on
views.
Microsoft SQL Administrator's companion book has a section on Capacity
Planning (for memory, processor, disk-subsystem) that you can have a look.
The problem we had with our quad-processor server was that we had to pay
close to 10,000$ to get 2 more CPUs since they were older CPUs. Note also
that storage often becomes a problem. With 200 servers to maintain by our
team, we often need to plan some upgrades for servers that are running low in
HD space (after few years) so make sure you have enough space on your
database server. Last think, it is very hard to load balance a SQL Server
(manual process as far as I know) because chances are that new servers will
get data from your database server in the future and/or the load will
increase.
"Dan" wrote:

> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan

Hardware planning for growth

We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
planning accordingly.
What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
current needs, and add to it as needed.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
-DanHi
In effect, you can only plan for the next 3-4 years. By then, the current
disk subsystems will need to be retired.
In effect, you need about 150Gb for Data and probably 400Gb for backups
during this period. A few 147Gb drives will do the job nicely.
For best performance have a seperate SCSI controller for the logs, backup
and data drives. You may want to split the data up into 2 drive sets to get
better throughput.
With the size and price of drives, do you really need RAID-5? What about
RAD-10? The write performance is just so much better.
Do you need high abailabilty? If so, you need to look at Windows Clusters.
This will guide you in the direction of the drive enclosure as it will need
to be a SAN. EMC has a few nice babies.
Regards
Mike
"Dan" wrote:
> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan|||Hi Dan,
Statistically speaking the company you are working for will not be in
business in 10 years! Anyhow. Let me tell you what I did for one of our
businesses that had a quad-processor (700 MHZ) server running SQL Server:
1-got a dual processor (3 GHZ) server.
2-Got 15000 RPM drives (50% in disk speed increase right of the bat!)
3-Created 3 RAID 1 arrays: one for OS, one for DB and one of transaction
log. Make sure that your controller supports split seeks, which devides the
read I/Os among the mirrored pair, allowing two disks to seek simultaneously.
Ideally you can use RAID 10.
4-be carefull with the edition of SQL Server. The server edition will limit
SQL to use a max. of 2 GB. Also, you will not be able to create indexes on
views.
Microsoft SQL Administrator's companion book has a section on Capacity
Planning (for memory, processor, disk-subsystem) that you can have a look.
The problem we had with our quad-processor server was that we had to pay
close to 10,000$ to get 2 more CPUs since they were older CPUs. Note also
that storage often becomes a problem. With 200 servers to maintain by our
team, we often need to plan some upgrades for servers that are running low in
HD space (after few years) so make sure you have enough space on your
database server. Last think, it is very hard to load balance a SQL Server
(manual process as far as I know) because chances are that new servers will
get data from your database server in the future and/or the load will
increase.
"Dan" wrote:
> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan

Hardware planning for growth

We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a RAI
D
1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years by
17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year 5
that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
planning accordingly.
What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to our
current needs, and add to it as needed.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
-DanHi
In effect, you can only plan for the next 3-4 years. By then, the current
disk subsystems will need to be retired.
In effect, you need about 150Gb for Data and probably 400Gb for backups
during this period. A few 147Gb drives will do the job nicely.
For best performance have a seperate SCSI controller for the logs, backup
and data drives. You may want to split the data up into 2 drive sets to get
better throughput.
With the size and price of drives, do you really need RAID-5? What about
RAD-10? The write performance is just so much better.
Do you need high abailabilty? If so, you need to look at Windows Clusters.
This will guide you in the direction of the drive enclosure as it will need
to be a SAN. EMC has a few nice babies.
Regards
Mike
"Dan" wrote:

> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a R
AID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years b
y
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year
5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to ou
r
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan|||Hi Dan,
Statistically speaking the company you are working for will not be in
business in 10 years! Anyhow. Let me tell you what I did for one of our
businesses that had a quad-processor (700 MHZ) server running SQL Server:
1-got a dual processor (3 GHZ) server.
2-Got 15000 RPM drives (50% in disk speed increase right of the bat!)
3-Created 3 RAID 1 arrays: one for OS, one for DB and one of transaction
log. Make sure that your controller supports split seeks, which devides the
read I/Os among the mirrored pair, allowing two disks to seek simultaneously
.
Ideally you can use RAID 10.
4-be carefull with the edition of SQL Server. The server edition will limit
SQL to use a max. of 2 GB. Also, you will not be able to create indexes on
views.
Microsoft SQL Administrator's companion book has a section on Capacity
Planning (for memory, processor, disk-subsystem) that you can have a look.
The problem we had with our quad-processor server was that we had to pay
close to 10,000$ to get 2 more CPUs since they were older CPUs. Note also
that storage often becomes a problem. With 200 servers to maintain by our
team, we often need to plan some upgrades for servers that are running low i
n
HD space (after few years) so make sure you have enough space on your
database server. Last think, it is very hard to load balance a SQL Server
(manual process as far as I know) because chances are that new servers will
get data from your database server in the future and/or the load will
increase.
"Dan" wrote:

> We are configuring a new database server at work. I have decided to do a R
AID
> 1 Array for the transaction log and a RAID 5 array for the data.
> The fastest growing part of our database is a table that stores photos. It
> is currently about 12Gb in size. We expect it to grow the next few years b
y
> 17Gb, 26Gb, 33Gb, then platueau at 37Gb growth a year. At the end of year
5
> that puts us at about 165Gb, and at the end of year 10 at about 500Gb.
> Although these are rough projections, I still need to be able to begin
> planning accordingly.
> What is the best hardware configuration to allow this kind of growth? I
> would like something that is expandable, so that I can buy according to ou
r
> current needs, and add to it as needed.
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.
> -Dan