Re: Raid 1+0 Configuration (0+1?)
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: ChrisR: "Cluster setup question"
- Previous message: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: Storing Transaction logs on a different volume"
- In reply to: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: Raid 1+0 Configuration (0+1?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:10:44 -0500
I agree with Keith in that there is little to no benefit to having multiple
logical drives aon a single drive array. You can accomplish the same thing
by simply placing each of those type files in their own folder. If you
partition the array 3 ways you run the risk of running out of space on
logical drive and having too much on another. There is no performance
benefit to doing what you stated and it gives the false impression that the
files may be on different physical drives.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@comcast.net> wrote in message news:OKxHv5Y$EHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Keep in mind that if you have one large RAID array it will remain one > large > raid array to Windows. You do not receive any benefit in partitioning the > one large array (other than the logical breakdown of where things are). > > If you had one RAID array that you could use for the OS > and one RAID array that you could use for tempdb > and one RAID array that that you could use for the data files > and one RAID array that you could use for the log files > You might get better performance over one large raid array because the > different controllers and disks within each array could be doing different > things at the same time. > > -- > Keith > > > "Etan" <aaawalrus@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1106070523.937785.276140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> I'm a relative newcomer to harddisk configurations, so bear with me. I >> just have some questions about the way Raid 1+0 works. It's a >> possibility that what I really want is Raid 0+1, but we'll figure that >> out. >> >> The way I understand that Raid 1+0 works is that you can have several >> Raid 1 pairs joined together in a Raid 0 array. It looks like this: >> >> Disk Disk Disk Disk >> | | | | >> R1 - R0 - R1 - R0 - R1 - R0 - R1 >> | | | | >> Disk Disk Disk Disk >> >> I have a few questions about this. The first question I have is: What >> does this look like to Windows? I'm hoping that it appears as one >> large volume that I can partition as I please. What I'd really like is >> a logical configuration of 3 drives using the 4 disks: 1 drive for the >> OS, 1 drive for the log files, and 1 drive for the data files. The >> data drive would use 2 disks. Something like this: >> >> C: D: E: >> | |---------| | >> Disk Disk Disk Disk >> | | | | >> R1 - R0 - R1 - R0 - R1 - R0 - R1 >> | | | | >> Disk Disk Disk Disk >> >> >> Is this do-able from a Raid 1+0 configuration? Or do I need a Raid 0+1 >> configuration like this: >> >> C: D: E: >> | |-----------| | >> Disk - R0 - Disk - R0 - Disk - R0 - Disk >> |-------------------|------------------| >> R1 >> |-------------------|------------------| >> Disk - R0 - Disk - R0 - Disk - R0 - Disk >> >> >> Also, what happens when a drive fails in the 1+0 array? Do reads and >> writes still continue with the redundant drive, so that everything is >> transparent to the user? When the drive is replaced, is there a huge >> performance hit when the drive is being rebuilt? >> Thanks in advance for all replies! >> >> -Etan >> >
- Next message: ChrisR: "Cluster setup question"
- Previous message: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: Storing Transaction logs on a different volume"
- In reply to: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: Raid 1+0 Configuration (0+1?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
