Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Leythos <Void@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:59:37 -0500
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:28:23 +0200, Henrik wrote:
Raid 5 will give you worse performance. Its all about the amount of
spindles/disc heads.
In your case, add an additional disc so that you have 6 discs at least and
then cretae three mirrored drives.
Wrong, RAID-1 provide worse random read performance than does RAID-5,
period.
Transaction logs are sequential - they work best on RAID-1.
Data files are mostly random reads with some randome writes - they work
best on RAID-5.
Most people don't have the drives and space to do RAID 1+0 or 0+1.
Saying that a MIRRORED RAID (which technically is RAID 1+0) and meaning a
MIRROR is faster than RAID-5 is incorrect.
Unless his database is for a non-typical application it will be more reads
than writes, that means that RAID-5 will provide better performance than
RAID-1 for the data files.
Take some time to read about the real performance differences with RAID-1
and RAID-5 as they relate to databases.
--
Leythos
spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx (remove 999 for proper email address)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Henrik
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- References:
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Leythos
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Leythos
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Leythos
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- From: Henrik
- Re: SQL on its own partition
- Prev by Date: Re: Sporadic credential failure
- Next by Date: RE: Flickering Explorer Over Mapped Network Drives
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL on its own partition
- Next by thread: Re: SQL on its own partition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
