Re: -- SQL 2005 memory (x64) --

Ekrem,

I read Mr. Kagel's article about RAIDs. I'm not complety sure that RAID10 is the best option if I want performance. In backing up and don't have any doubt that RAID10 is better than RAID5 (because of the redundancy). I have a database server with high reading and writing operations. I'm not sure if RAID10 will make the writing process slower than RAID5.

Edmundo J. Davila
Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió en el mensaje de noticias news:7473FF0A-8F12-48C5-8E7C-2E6C4DD65054@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello Edmundo!

Answers are in lines.

--
Ekrem Önsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT



"Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ekrem,

Thank you for your answer.

I have the following doubts:

1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available in the SQL Server 64 bits?

Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version of SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL to learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's not necessary to use it in x64 systems.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx


2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface) the maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.

2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.


3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the redundancy.

Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments regarding to my doubts.

Edmundo J. Davila


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: -- SQL 2005 memory (x64) --
    ... Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have time. ... MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT ... "Edmundo J. Davila" wrote in message ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: PageFaults & MSSearch
    ... > their own disk array as RAID10. ... > upon the available memory. ... > for SQL Server as well as for the MSSearch service and other processes ... >> the SQL Server errorlog file or the server's Application or System event ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext)
  • Re: -- SQL 2005 memory (x64) --
    ... Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have ... After deciding which RAID configurationis the best for your particular ... MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: -- SQL 2005 memory (x64) --
    ... Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have time. ... However, if write rate is high in your environment, than a RAID10 would be more appropriate for your data files. ... After deciding which RAID configurationis the best for your particular environment, then locate your database log files and data files on different physical disks according to those RAID choices. ... MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITP:DBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • What hardware do you run?
    ... We are in the process of putting in a new SQL Server box. ... 4*74GB WD Raptors 10,000rpm SATAs on RAID10 for the data ... 4GB 2700 RAM ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
Loading