Best Performance?

Assume a heavy transaction environment.
Let's say we have the same database model,
same hardware, file usage, type of data, queries etc. on two servers.
Server A is configured with a RAID 5 on all the data disks (9 of them),
and Server B is configured with RAID 5 on the data disks (5 of them) but
transaction log and tempdb is separated to its own mirrored disks (4 of
them - 2 each).
Which SQL server will run faster in terms of query response time AND write
performance? Database in Server A or Server B?Assumimng disc io is the limiting factor then I would say B would be =most likely to outperform A. But even better would be lose the raid 5 =and use 0+1 on 4 discs. or possibly on 6 and lose the separation of =tempdb. Of course this will lose you some space over the raid 5, but =will perform better. Hardware raid vs S/W will alo make a difference. =How much separating tempdb gives you totally depends on the number of =queries generating large temporary results.
Opinions are likely to vary a lot and you haven't given much info to go =on.
Mike John
"Rick" <bob@.bob.net> wrote in message =news:3f858779$0$103$8f4e7992@.newsreader.goldengate.net...
> Assume a heavy transaction environment.
> > Let's say we have the same database model,
> same hardware, file usage, type of data, queries etc. on two servers.
> Server A is configured with a RAID 5 on all the data disks (9 of =them),
> and Server B is configured with RAID 5 on the data disks (5 of them) =but
> transaction log and tempdb is separated to its own mirrored disks (4 =of
> them - 2 each).
> > Which SQL server will run faster in terms of query response time AND =write
> performance? Database in Server A or Server B?
> >|||I completely agree with Mike John's remark to drop RAID5 completely,
certainly for a 'heavy transaction environment' as you describe. Check out
this link for some reasons why
http://www.miracleas.dk/BAARF/BAARF2.html
(OK it's Oracle/Unix, but it is as tru for the SQLServer/Win world too..)
"Mike John" <Mike.John@.knowledgepool.com> wrote in message
news:uRds7fpjDHA.2676@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Assumimng disc io is the limiting factor then I would say B would be most
likely to outperform A. But even better would be lose the raid 5 and use 0+1
on 4 discs. or possibly on 6 and lose the separation of tempdb. Of course
this will lose you some space over the raid 5, but will perform better.
Hardware raid vs S/W will alo make a difference. How much separating tempdb
gives you totally depends on the number of queries generating large
temporary results.
Opinions are likely to vary a lot and you haven't given much info to go on.
Mike John
"Rick" <bob@.bob.net> wrote in message
news:3f858779$0$103$8f4e7992@.newsreader.goldengate.net...
> Assume a heavy transaction environment.
> Let's say we have the same database model,
> same hardware, file usage, type of data, queries etc. on two servers.
> Server A is configured with a RAID 5 on all the data disks (9 of them),
> and Server B is configured with RAID 5 on the data disks (5 of them) but
> transaction log and tempdb is separated to its own mirrored disks (4 of
> them - 2 each).
> Which SQL server will run faster in terms of query response time AND write
> performance? Database in Server A or Server B?
>|||On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:06:17 -0500, "Rick" <bob@.bob.net> wrote:
>Assume a heavy transaction environment.
> Let's say we have the same database model,
>same hardware, file usage, type of data, queries etc. on two servers.
>Server A is configured with a RAID 5 on all the data disks (9 of them),
>and Server B is configured with RAID 5 on the data disks (5 of them) but
>transaction log and tempdb is separated to its own mirrored disks (4 of
>them - 2 each).
>Which SQL server will run faster in terms of query response time AND write
>performance? Database in Server A or Server B?
Well, like the other guys said, one would probably anticipate B
running a bit faster, but it's also going to depend on how much data
is cached, that is, on RAM size, and just how heavily tempdb gets
used, and for that matter, how heavily the log gets used. If it were
100% simple queries, A might even win, for a more usual mix of 90%
simple queries, 5% complex queries, and 5% highly localized updates,
you're probably close to the break-even point, assuming you're not
running short of disk IO bandwidth or CPU in either case A or case B.
J.