Handle Error: raid

Showing posts with label raid. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

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 specs( No. of RAID Controllers)

We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
So we are thinking of
2*72 RAID 1 for OS
2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
2*72 RAID 1 for Log
4*72 RAID 10 for Data
3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these drives
too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2 and if so,
what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
ThanksI would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
--
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
> So we are thinking of
> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2
> and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
> Thanks|||Are you saying as such ?
2*72 RAID 1 for OS
4*72 RAID 10 for Tempdb(data and log) and Log Files
4*72 RAID 10 for Data Files
3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
>is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2
>> and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>|||>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
>is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
Logs shouldn't be shared with other files. Log writes during COMMIT are
synchronous and so response time will be negatively affected due to
competing with other file I/O.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
>is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2
>> and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>|||is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ? Or
have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log files
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7C67FDC2-4E72-4DEE-80F7-F5EEDCC44DD2@.microsoft.com...
> >I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
> >rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
> >controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
> Logs shouldn't be shared with other files. Log writes during COMMIT are
> synchronous and so response time will be negatively affected due to
> competing with other file I/O.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
> news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
>>is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> --
>> Jason Massie
>> www: http://statisticsio.com
>> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2
>> and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>|||> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ? Or
> have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
> files
I would place the tempdb log file to the same drive/array as the other log
files and on a controller with a lot of write cache. Tempdb data files may
be heavily used and separating data files from log files will help optimize
the sequential writes to the log.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:OqcmMl8TIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ? Or
> have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
> files
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:7C67FDC2-4E72-4DEE-80F7-F5EEDCC44DD2@.microsoft.com...
>> >I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>> >rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>> >controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> Logs shouldn't be shared with other files. Log writes during COMMIT are
>> synchronous and so response time will be negatively affected due to
>> competing with other file I/O.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
>> news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>>controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> --
>> Jason Massie
>> www: http://statisticsio.com
>> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then
>> 2 and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
> 4*72 RAID 10 for Log Files
> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data Files
> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
And treat tempdb as any other database with this spindle count. Data files
on data drive. Log files on log drive. When you don't don't have many
spindles, it is best to keep it simple.
There is even a case that could be made this config:
> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
> 8*72 RAID 10 for Data Files and Log Files
> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:umf6Sb8TIHA.5288@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Are you saying as such ?
> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
> 4*72 RAID 10 for Tempdb(data and log) and Log Files
> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data Files
> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
> "jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
> news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the controller
>>is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> --
>> Jason Massie
>> www: http://statisticsio.com
>> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then 2
>> and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>|||Would you also do it with one controller ?
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:467C193D-BFB7-45C1-BC99-DF7084FF714C@.microsoft.com...
>> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ?
>> Or have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
>> files
> I would place the tempdb log file to the same drive/array as the other log
> files and on a controller with a lot of write cache. Tempdb data files
> may be heavily used and separating data files from log files will help
> optimize the sequential writes to the log.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:OqcmMl8TIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ?
>> Or have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
>> files
>> Thanks
>> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:7C67FDC2-4E72-4DEE-80F7-F5EEDCC44DD2@.microsoft.com...
>> >I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like
>> >the rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>> >controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> Logs shouldn't be shared with other files. Log writes during COMMIT are
>> synchronous and so response time will be negatively affected due to
>> competing with other file I/O.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
>> news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like the
>>rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>>controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> --
>> Jason Massie
>> www: http://statisticsio.com
>> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not, then
>> 2 and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||> Would you also do it with one controller ?
It depends on budget and controller capabilities. A single controller is
probably adequate as long as it's a decent one with features like lots of
cache, configurable cache read/write ratio and battery backup.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:usb%23Wc9TIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Would you also do it with one controller ?
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:467C193D-BFB7-45C1-BC99-DF7084FF714C@.microsoft.com...
>> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ?
>> Or have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
>> files
>> I would place the tempdb log file to the same drive/array as the other
>> log files and on a controller with a lot of write cache. Tempdb data
>> files may be heavily used and separating data files from log files will
>> help optimize the sequential writes to the log.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OqcmMl8TIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> is it best to put both the log files for the data and tempdb together ?
>> Or have tempdb on its own disks that include both its data files and log
>> files
>> Thanks
>> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:7C67FDC2-4E72-4DEE-80F7-F5EEDCC44DD2@.microsoft.com...
>> >I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like
>> >the rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>> >controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> Logs shouldn't be shared with other files. Log writes during COMMIT
>> are synchronous and so response time will be negatively affected due to
>> competing with other file I/O.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
>> news:185DB471-3652-44A0-AAD0-33E056397B92@.microsoft.com...
>>I would combine the tempdb and log drive and treat tempdb files like
>>the rest of the databases. It is better to have logs on 0+1. If the
>>controller is decent, one will be able to handle that spindle count.
>> --
>> Jason Massie
>> www: http://statisticsio.com
>> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMbGoL8TIHA.4684@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We want to go with SQL recommendations of seperate drives for
>> backups,data,log,tempdb and OS.
>> So we are thinking of
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for OS
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Tempdb
>> 2*72 RAID 1 for Log
>> 4*72 RAID 10 for Data
>> 3*72 RAID 5 for backups,etc.
>> So the question is should I use one RAID controller to tie all these
>> drives too ? Just looking at it from a price perspective. If not,
>> then 2 and if so, what areas should I distribute the above layout to
>> ?
>> Let me know if 1 RAID controller would work.
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware question

I'm building a database server that's going to be running MS SQL 2000 server
and .net application. Should I go with SATA RAID or is U320 SCSI RAID
recommended? The latter is much more expensive, but is the performance
worth it?

Also, should I go with dual Xeon or should I go with AMD's Opteron? I read
a review from anandtech that basically tore the Xeon up. What are your
thoughts?

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p=9"Shabam" <blislecp@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bq6dnZkI_NzWiGbdRVn-ug@.adelphia.com...
> I'm building a database server that's going to be running MS SQL 2000
server
> and .net application. Should I go with SATA RAID or is U320 SCSI RAID
> recommended? The latter is much more expensive, but is the performance
> worth it?

It really depends on what you're doing.

> Also, should I go with dual Xeon or should I go with AMD's Opteron? I
read
> a review from anandtech that basically tore the Xeon up. What are your
> thoughts?

Again.. it depends.

I've run SQL databases on a Single CPU 500Mhz machine and it was adequate.

I have a database on Quad Xeon 700Mhz 2MB Cache machine with U160 RAIDs and
that's barely fast enough for 42 million lookups a day and 17 million writes
a day.

So... again.. what will you be doing.

(and there are books that will give you numbers on various things like I/Os
per disk, etc that let you calculate what you need.)

> http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p=9|||The whole SCSI vs. SATA debate comes down to nothing more than the
external interfaces for the drives. You need to look beyond that and
compare the drives themselves and then take a look at what you want to
do with them.

In simple terms SATA drives are not yet designed for 24x7 use with the
same MTBF as SCSI drives, if you take a close look at the numbers you'll
find that the external interface, SCSI or SATA, isn't the deciding
factor in the drives performance. SCSI drives are just built better in
very simple terms and do perform better, remember that performance isn't
all about rpm. If you need the extra performance and reliability then go
for SCSI, if money is tight then go for SATA.

HTH,
g.

http://www.sqlskunkworks.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

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

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.
Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware that
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application design
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed. and
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most we
have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware tha
t
having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now (200
concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application desig
n
itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
scenario. Thanks in advance.Eric there is no way to answer that without knowing a lot more of what your
current system is doing and how the hardware is holding up now. Do you do 1
transaction per second or 1 thousand? What are the disk Queues, processor
queues etc. like now?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C2BC87F-5505-4DD6-9E79-A053B86527BA@.microsoft.com...
> We have a web app currently being hosted on a RAID 5 with four disks, 2 GB
> RAM, Xenon 3.2 processor. Also running Windows 2003 Server Standard Ed.
> and
> SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition. Our database is about 4GB and at most
> we
> have 10 concurrent users hitting our server, with a mix of read and write
> operations. Both the OS and our DB are on the same machine. I am aware
> that
> having both IIS and SQL Server on the same box is not the ideal
> configuration, but it has suited our needs given the load.
> We are looking to private license our software to one other company, which
> would entail the licensee having their own seperate db, but running in the
> same instance of SQL Server. At a minimum, I'm thinking we would move SQL
> Server onto its own dedicated machine, keeping the current RAID 5 config.
> Perhaps this would not be sufficient?
> What I'm looking for is some indication as to whether or not the proposed
> platform could handle an increased user load, say 20 times what is now
> (200
> concurrent users). This is primarily an OLTP db used for ACH processing,
> with several reporting features. I'm fully aware that the application
> design
> itself, along with query tuning, indexing, etc is equally important as the
> hardware, but need some guidance on the hardware itself.
> What I'm looking for are some general guidelines to follow given this
> scenario. Thanks in advance.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Hard Drive Brand

I am looking for a 3 drive 36 gig 80 pin hot swappable Raid 5 set of hard
drives and was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on drive brands. Seagate
Cheetah, Maxtor, Dell? It will be running in a Dell Poweredge 2600 server.
The server will be running Win2003 server and SQL 2000 server. I am looking
for reliability. Also looking for a reliable vendor. CDW seems to have good
prices on these.Hi Jon,
Why not go for DELL spares, when u want to use them for
DELL Machine?. IBM HD's are reliable. But i wont suggest it
If your Dell Machine is under warranty or AMC.
At a point if some Technical problem arise, VENDOR A may
blame VENDOR B and vice-versa for the problem & u have to
just watch them! . I already experienced such problems In
my early stages.
Also you might have to post your Query in relevant forums
for better suggestions.
HTH
Regards
Thirumal
Sys.Admin
www.sstil.com
>--Original Message--
>I am looking for a 3 drive 36 gig 80 pin hot swappable
Raid 5 set of hard
>drives and was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on
drive brands. Seagate
>Cheetah, Maxtor, Dell? It will be running in a Dell
Poweredge 2600 server.
>The server will be running Win2003 server and SQL 2000
server. I am looking
>for reliability. Also looking for a reliable vendor. CDW
seems to have good
>prices on these.
>
>.
>

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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Monday, March 19, 2012

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware/RAID Optimum Setup

Hardware specs( No. of RAID Controllers)

Hardware specs( No. of RAID Controllers)

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware question

Hardware planning for growth

Hardware planning for growth

Hardware planning for growth

Friday, March 9, 2012

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Hardware Configuration - Need Advice

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Hard Drive Brand

Hard disk configuration question

Handle Error

Blog Archive

About Me