Re: Hardware configuration SATA vs. SCSI
- From: "Robert Moir" <robspamtrap+msnews@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:32:33 +0100
TurboTom wrote:
We are going to have Windows Server 2003 running desktop SQL with
about 10 users.
Will there be a noticeable speed difference between 5 SATA 3Gb/s
versus 4 SCSI drives in a raid 5 configuration?
I'm sure if I look at the numbers, SCSI will look much faster, but in
actual use, how would it appear?
Well if you put everything on a single raid 5 disk array then SQL server
will never be all that it can be. If possible try to split the OS & DB log
files onto their own mirrored pair of disks away from the actual database
file.
Other than that, I'd echo Joshua's comments about SATA vs. SCSI. SATA can
cope well when lightly to moderately loaded, but for continuous hard
charging use like you'd expect to see from any kind of SQL db, I'd buy SCSI
every time.
The load on the database might be more important than the exact number of
users - I have a group of 10 users who build absolutely fiendish queries
every time they boot up their machines, and another group of several hundred
who request one report a day which is generated once and then shared between
them.
--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft MVP
Blog Site - http://www.robertmoir.com
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
I'm always surprised at "professionals" who STILL have to be asked "Have you
checked (event viewer / syslog)".
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Scheduled Tasks won't run?
- Next by Date: Windows 2003 Server Connecting to Windows 2000 Server Terminal Services
- Previous by thread: Re: Hardware configuration SATA vs. SCSI
- Next by thread: Re: Hardware configuration SATA vs. SCSI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
