Re: RAID configuration for SQL Server 2005

How many transactions per second are you talking about? Are you concerned with performance and scalability? 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. You might consider this:

Raid 1 OS & Log files (including tempdb log file)
Raid 1 Tempdb data and Backups
Raid 10 User data files

But it can really depend on how you use the database.


--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"devprog@xxxxxxxxxxx" <devprogmsbcompcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2B507DF1-FE80-4D9F-B3F2-7EAA661B8297@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We're upgrading SQL Server from 2000 to 2005 and installing 2005 on a brand
new server...I have a question about the RAID configuration.

We're getting a Dell PowerEdge 2970 with 8 drives, all SAS 2.5" 10K and 300
GB in size.

I know 4 of those drives will be setup in RAID 10 and will hold the main
data files. My question is about the other 4 drives.

The options are:

A. Configure 2 drives in RAID 1 for OS, tempdb, backup and another 2 drives
in RAID 1 for transaction logs & backup

B. Configure all 4 drives with RAID 10 in one array and put OS, tempdb,
transaction logs and backup all together

I'd rather go with option B because that gives me flexibility in how storage
is used - 600 GB total - (as opposed to having to work with 2 separate arrays
at 300 GB each) but I'm not sure what the negative impacts will be (if any)
from having all those things together.

This is for an OLTP database (ecommerce site) and there will be just one
RAID controller installed in the server.

Is it a bad idea to combine OS, tempdb, transaction logs into a single RAID
10 array? Or do I need to use two arrays in RAID 1 (option A) and lose the
space flexibility?

Thanks.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID configuration for SQL Server 2005
    ... It can depend heavily on what the transaction is and the amount and type of data being modified. ... Normally without more specifics I would say add the two disks from the Raid 1 for Tempdb to the Raid 10 and just put the tempdb data on it as well. ... If so then you should keep the log files ...
    (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 ... Backups should never be placed on the same array as the user data ... transaction logs and backup all together ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • 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
    ... 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 ... > one can occur you want the tran logs to operate as smoothly as possible. ...
    (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)