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

First of all, I'm not a RAID expert. However, I read about RAIDs a lot so I just shared my idea with you.

However, it would be very useful to test this kind of configuration before implementing it. Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have time.

You said that your I\O rate is mixed read and write. For this kind of mixed needs RAID10 is recommended.

Generally tests say that RAID1' s write performance is much more good over RAID5, so use RAID1 for your log files. RAID5's read performance is much better than RAID1's so locate your data files on a RAID5. However, if write rate is high in your environment, than a RAID10 would be more appropriate for your data files.

After deciding which RAID configuration(s) is the best for your particular environment, then locate your database log files and data files on different physical disks according to those RAID choices.

These opinions are from the tests people perform in their environments. We can not be sure these results would work for everybody perfectly. So, the best is test test and test it again.

I'll give you some links below, see yourself. Also, read the comments in those pages.
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/billg/archive/2007/06/18/RAID-10-vs.-RAID-5-Performance.aspx
http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~ken/perf_tests.html
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/02/07/is-raid-5-really-that-bad.aspx

--
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:91FF0342-72B9-42F8-8BBC-E5FE203E485C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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

  • Best way to install data files?
    ... I posted this in the setup news group but haven't received and replies, ... I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server ... It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5. ... OR Should SQL Server and the data files be ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)
  • RE: Best way to install data files?
    ... > I am developing a small ASP.NET web application that will use an SQL Server ... It also has 6 other drives set up as a RAID 5. ... > Should SQL Server be installed on the RAID 1, ... OR Should SQL Server and the data files be ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • 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: RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question
    ... > Where are the transaction logs going? ... > data files. ... then the RAID 1+0 i wasn't sure if it mattered. ... >> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: Best way to install data files?
    ... In earlier versions of Access there was a considerable learning curve to use attached Access secured "backend" databases, and I am wondering if I should expect similar hurdles with the distributable version of SQL Server. ... the RAID 1, and the user database on the RAID 5. ... OR Should SQL Server and the data files be ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)