Multi-Channel Raid VS SAN Storage

I am hoping someone can give me some advice about the performance difference
between Multi-Channel Raid vs SAN storage.

My basic question has to do with Performance and optimization.
Assuming I have the same spec drives (size, speed, throughput, ets...) is
SQL better off with a Multi-channel raid controller or a SAN storrage array?
Are there such things as multi-channel SAN storrage Arrays?
Can anybody direct me to some good white papers abbout SAN storage and SQL?

We currently run a two node Clustered SQL 2000 environment.
Unfortunately the nodes are attached to a common 1 channel raid device so
everything runs off the 1 Raid array.

We are getting ready to upgrade our hardware, however our parent company is
insisting that we implement a SAN for all of our data storage and I am
wondering if that is the best solution for our SQL server. We will also be
upgrading to SQL 2005 at the same time.

I know we could benefit from moving the logs, tempdb and possibly some of
our indexes over to separate IO channels, but I am uncertain as to how a SAN
environment affects these concepts.

I don't think the database is all that big, roughly 1.5GB but there are a
couple of sizeable tables. one audit table has over 5 million records and our
expense tables have about 300K and will probably grow by at least 25-30K
records per year.

The RAID array has been divided into multiple volumes. One dedicated to SQL,
another to Exchange and a third to general fileshare. But they are still on a
single SCSI channel.

My concern is that when we migrate to our new hardware they are going to try
and implement the same architecture and drive throughput is going to continue
to be stolen from SQL by the other servers and applications. I want to make
certain tha I ask all the right questions and make all the right points to
avoid having SQL crippled by our new infrastructure.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Eli Silverman






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Multi-Channel Raid VS SAN Storage
    ... A 5~6 years old server is a very old server. ... As I mentioned, the server is one node in a cluster environment, and SQL is ... We actually are running RAID 1+0 and our aplication is definately more ... needs it's own SAN device, or at least a dedicated IO channel on the SAN. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Multi-Channel Raid VS SAN Storage
    ... A 5~6 years old server is a very old server. ... As I mentioned, the server is one node in a cluster environment, and SQL is ... We actually are running RAID 1+0 and our aplication is definately more ... needs it's own SAN device, or at least a dedicated IO channel on the SAN. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Multi-Channel Raid VS SAN Storage
    ... First off a 1.5GB database is extremely small for SQL Server these days. ... If you are currently using a single Raid 1 array and share that with Exchange and a file share and get OK performance now you should only see improvement with a SAN. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Multi-Channel Raid VS SAN Storage
    ... The server itself is about 5 and a half years old. ... As I mentioned, the server is one node in a cluster environment, and SQL is ... We actually are running RAID 1+0 and our aplication is definately more ... needs it's own SAN device, or at least a dedicated IO channel on the SAN. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Do they all map LUNs to your SAN? ... > wondering how the disk could be highly utilized if I have no users ... >> following formulats for the RAID type of each LUN: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)