Re: RAID Configuration

From: epigram (nospam_at_spammy.com)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:27:48 -0500

Thanks for the clarification. So, it is more beneficial (in terms of
performance) for the transaction log files to be on the RAID 1 set (which
has faster write speeds than RAID 5) and the data files to be on the RAID 5
set as opposed to the other way around?

Thanks.

"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23zyzK1F3EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Just a clarification. What you want on the Raid 1 are the SQL Server
> Transaction Log files. Do not mix any other type of file with these other
> than Tran logs. The idea isn't as much because they are heavily written
> to and the data files aren't but more the fact that the logs are written
> to sequentially and the data is random. These two operations conflict
> with each other and since each log entry must be written before the next
> one can occur you want the tran logs to operate as smoothly as possible.
> And yes you can move the log files later on.
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224071 Moving SQL Server
> Databases to a New Location with Detach/Attach
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=221465 Using WITH MOVE in a
> Restore
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>
> "epigram" <nospam@spammy.com> wrote in message
> news:1102420755.7ec11aeae846a8a66a3c23549db3b9e4@bubbanews...
>>I currently have a server with a RAID 5 drive set. I can't change that,
>>but I can add two additional drives. So, I was planning on adding two
>>drives in a RAID 1/mirrored set configuration based upon some posts in
>>this newsgroup and some articles I have read. I want to make sure I am
>>clear if this is the best approach, given my current setup, and that I am
>>correct in what I plan to do with the two RAID sets.
>>
>> My plan is to put the transaction and log files on the RAID 1 set and
>> everything else on the RAID 5 set (i.e. SQL Server installation, table
>> files). From what I understand the trans and log files are heavily
>> written to, and putting them on the RAID 1 set would give me a boost for
>> writes.
>>
>> Is this the correct approach? If my budget doesn't allow me to install
>> the RAID 1 set immediately, can I install SQL Server now and reconfigure
>> it to place the trans and log files to the RAID 1 set later?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Installing SQL Server 2005 on Windows 2003 Server (RAID 5) - need advice
    ... available disks and set up I can put the data files on D: ... on RAID 5 which has a greater read performance ... and put the .ldf files (Log files, by their nature, are mostly written ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: RAID Configuration
    ... What you want on the Raid 1 are the SQL Server ... occur you want the tran logs to operate as smoothly as possible. ... you can move the log files later on. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: RAID configuration for SQL Server 2005
    ... If so then you should keep the log files on a Raid 1 by themselves or on the Raid 1 with the OS since it is not used that much. ... Backups should never be placed on the same array as the user data or log files since if that array goes south you loose the backups and the data or log. ... transaction logs and backup all together ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Physical Disk Fragmentation
    ... Thanks I will try the raid 1 for the log files, ... I need to take sql offline to defrag? ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: RAID Configuration
    ... > performance) for the transaction log files to be on the RAID 1 set (which ... > has faster write speeds than RAID 5) and the data files to be on the RAID ... What you want on the Raid 1 are the SQL Server ... >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)