Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- From: "Mercury" <me@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:33:33 +1300
This depends entirely on the degree of use of tempdb. Some systems make very
heavy use, others barely touch it...
"Magoo" <magoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C2AA73DA-ACD1-4820-B45D-05CEDBFB96EC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
doing some reading on ms,,, says tempdb on its own scsi channel would
offer
some performance optimization. "By segmenting tempdb onto its own RAID
channel, we enable tempdb I/O operations to occur in parallel with the I/O
operations of their related transactions"
We are not doing heavy database transactions, not even close to 10k per
second. Thanks for the replies
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
Well again it depends on what you intend to do but it is a better
configuration than most. As long as you are not trying to do 10K
transactions per second you should be in pretty good shape. In terms of
partitioning though you generally don't want any other than a full
partition
on each physical array. That is because two partitions or logical drives
on
a single physical array does nothing for performance and can fool people
into thinking they are splitting files when they are not.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Magoo" <magoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9179766A-0D90-4835-B061-2947234CB56A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for the response. The budget is flexible to do it "the right
way
the
first time" where we won't have performance issues and won't have to
mess
around with this for a few years. I'm looking at an HP ML 370 which
can
hold
a total of 8 drives, 4GB of memory.
So:
(2) drives RAID 1 for the OS (Windows Server 2000 or 2003 and SQL
2000)
(2) drvies RAID 1 for the Log files
(4) drives RAID 10 with user files and TempDB data files
Is this an optimal config? Can you clarify what, if any, partitioning
that
needs to be done?
Thanks, I appreciate it.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
The number of apps is not really a factor unless you need a different
SQL
Server instance for each app but I highly doubt that. What is best
depends
a lot on the available hardware, your budget and how you use the data.
An
ideal solution disregarding cost for SQL Server 2005 would be this:
OS - RAID 1
SQL Transactions Logs - Raid 1 or RAID 10 with ONLY log files on
it
SQL User Data Files - RAID 10
TEMPDB Data Files - RAID 1 or 10
If you are only doing a relatively small number of transactions per
second
you can get away with less but we would have to know more about the
usage
to
give any more details.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Magoo" <magoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:98477A15-B73B-4BB2-BB32-B64F3089D608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm a novice with SQL, please assist me.
I'm looking for "best practices" setup for SQL applications.
Should I configure mirror drives for the OS, and a unique physical
mirror
for each application and instance of SQL?
So, if i have 4 SQL apps, I would need 10 drives, since there would
be
an
OS
mirror and 4 SQL apps mirrors?
Or is a mirror for the OS and a RAID 5 OK for the Apps with 4
partitions
defined for each app?
Thanks for your advice.
.
- References:
- Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- From: Andrew J. Kelly
- Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- From: Andrew J. Kelly
- Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- From: Magoo
- Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- Prev by Date: Re: Poor performance after upgrading to sql server 2005
- Next by Date: Re: What hardware do you run?
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server 2000, Raid 1 or Raid 5 for Applications
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
