Re: New Server RAID setup

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:31:40 -0400

A Raid 10 is a series of Mirrored drives (Raid 1) that are then striped in a
Raid 0. Ultimately it is treated as a single drive array but under the
covers it really is implemented as two different arrays. This allows for
high performance due to the Raid 0 but has the fault tolerance of Raid 1 for
each of the stripes in the Raid 0. 

-- 
Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
"RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ED7350C9-7946-4394-AFB3-D912A2D46B0D@microsoft.com...
> Just one last question regarding RAID 1+0 (10).  Am I correct in saying
RAID 10 is setup on ONE RAID array?  I believe it is one array.  I ask
because a in-depth tech. document referres to the mirrors in a RAID 10 as
"sub-arrays"
> Please advise.
> Andrew thank you for all your help!
> -- 
> RAJ
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
> > Again it all depends on lots of thinks that I have no knowledge of about
> > your situation.  Ideally yes it would be best to have IIS etc on another
> > machine.  If you have one all set up already and it won't affect the
current
> > apps performance then maybe it is easier that way.  Then you don't have
to
> > administer two servers with IIS and ASP and won't have to worry about
> > sharing resources with SQL Server.  But you will know that much better
than
> > I. There is always the ideal or wishful scenario and then there is real
life
> > where you make due with what you have.
> >
> > -- 
> > Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:B4B305DC-7905-4692-A307-06C4C9A444CA@microsoft.com...
> > > Ok, it is NOT recommended that IIS & ASP .NET be running on the same
> > server as SQL for performance & security reasons.  If in fact I go with
ASP
> > ..NET & IIS running on the same server as SQL I should install more
memory.
> > Point taken, I got that.
> > > I have IIS running on another, under utilized server.  Would you
recommend
> > I user that server for IIS & ASP.NET functionality of this project?
> > > -- 
> > > RAJ
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> > >
> > > > While you can certainly run IIS, ASP etc on the same server as SQL
> > Server it
> > > > is never recommended if performance is a consideration not to
mention
> > > > Security.  I don't know how large your DB will be and how much
memory
> > IIS
> > > > and ASP will eventually use but I would say you will want more than
1GB.
> > > > And make sure you set your MAX Memory setting in SQL Server to a
value
> > that
> > > > will leave plenty of ram for the OS, IIS and ASP.
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:0D0EDE25-7FF2-451B-91A1-AA2FDD470575@microsoft.com...
> > > > > Great, I'll proceed w/ RAID 1+0 (10).  The server currently has 1
gig
> > of
> > > > memory.  It's going to be running .NET serving up Active Server
Pages
> > (ASP)
> > > > inside IIS.  Do you think 1 gig of memory is sufficient?
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > RAJ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The number of users does not mean much either, it's what they
will
> > be
> > > > doing
> > > > > > and how often they will be doing it.  By RAID 1+0 I meant Raid
10
> > and no
> > > > you
> > > > > > don't want to create a Raid 0 and a Raid 1.  If those are the
only
> > disks
> > > > you
> > > > > > have then I would keep it as a Raid 10 and your only choice will
be
> > to
> > > > place
> > > > > > every thing on drive array.  Is this server going to host the
> > > > application as
> > > > > > well?  If so make sure you have enough ram for both.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:2664451A-AC77-45B3-9EA3-0E980A7919F3@microsoft.com...
> > > > > > > The server is going to be used as a .NET server, for document
> > > > managment.
> > > > > > The utilization, I believe is going to be low.  There are going
to
> > be at
> > > > > > most 150 users utilizing the server.  As far as RAID 1+0, am I
> > correct
> > > > in
> > > > > > saying the OS & SQL application be placed on a RAID 0 array &
the
> > log
> > > > files
> > > > > > be placed on a RAID 1?
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > RAJ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How you should configure the drives depends a lot on what
your
> > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > with them.  If you app is relatively small or only has a few
> > > > > > transactions
> > > > > > > > per second that approach sounds fine.  The more trans / sec
you
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > likely you will see disk issues unless you place the log
file on
> > > > it's
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > Raid 1.  I would say start witht he Raid 1+0 and see how it
> > goes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "RAJ" <RAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:281E5061-F153-4635-82D4-2EB720D27A4B@microsoft.com...
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > I have a new IBM eServer w/ 5 identical HD's.  I'm new to
SQL
> > and
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > researching the best HD configuration.  I've come to the
> > conclusion
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > using 4 of the HD's for a RAID 10 configuration and keeping
the
> > 5th
> > > > > > drive as
> > > > > > > > a hotswap backup drive.  With that said I have two
questions.
> > > > > > > > > 1.  Can I go wrong creating a RAID 10 & a hotswap drive?
> > > > > > > > > 2.  I there anything else I should consider regarding the
> > config.
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > HD's?
> > > > > > > > > Any and all suggestions welcome!
> > > > > > > > > Thank You!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > > RAJ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Partitioning quest
    ... > I'm getting ready to setup an Exchange Server and an IIS server. ... Do whatever you like, whatever your budget permits, with regard to RAID. ... My advice for an Exchange server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • fedora-list-request@redhat.com
    ... Anybody have any experience with RAID controllers under ... >> is not found on that server. ... > If nVidia were to do something silly I could swap the card in a matter ... > the usb drives and then reboot to linux to get them working properly. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Disk Configuration Best Practices
    ... > boot-time RAID utility to reconfigure back to RAID1, ... >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP ... I converted a RAID1 array in my DC/Exchange Server to a RAID5 ... I have 5 drives in the SQL server ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: HP proliant ML115 G5 on debian lenny
    ... dardrives to do RAID 1 backup for several other servers. ... simple backup server, any drive over 1 GB will hold all the ... system onto a 6 GB partition on one of the drives. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: io recommendation
    ... The reason for placing the logs on their own raid 1 separate ... placement on the drives and decrease efficiency when reading and writing. ... Having 3GB on the server is good since the OS and any other apps that need ... >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)