I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID 5
arrays.
1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better than
having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data files?
2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does a
lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving a
photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files (blob
data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
"Dan" wrote in message
news:C73453B5-76E7-4D6C-8A58-9ED1AC11A87A@.microsoft.com...
:I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
:
: I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
: and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID
5
: arrays.
:
: 1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better
than
: having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data
files?
:
: 2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
: database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does
a
: lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving
a
: photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
: non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files
(blob
: data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
Here is the idea:
RAID 1 (mirroring, duplexing) writes fast, reads normal
RAID 5 (distributed data guarding with parity) writes slow, reads very fast
Log files are written to more often than read from. RAID 1 is a performance
increase over RAID 5.
Data files are read more often than written to. RAID 5 is a performance
increase over RAID 1.
Saving a blob in a database is a waste, IMHO. Save the file on the data
drive and store a link to it in the database.
If your goal is performance, blobs are counter productive.
HTH...
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Showing posts with label config. Show all posts
Showing posts with label config. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
best SCSI config
I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID 5
arrays.
1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better than
having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data file
s?
2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does a
lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving a
photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files (blo
b
data) on thier own RAID 5 array?"Dan" wrote in message
news:C73453B5-76E7-4D6C-8A58-9ED1AC11A87A@.microsoft.com...
:I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
:
: I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
: and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID
5
: arrays.
:
: 1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better
than
: having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data
files?
:
: 2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
: database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does
a
: lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving
a
: photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
: non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files
(blob
: data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
Here is the idea:
RAID 1 (mirroring, duplexing) writes fast, reads normal
RAID 5 (distributed data guarding with parity) writes slow, reads very fast
Log files are written to more often than read from. RAID 1 is a performance
increase over RAID 5.
Data files are read more often than written to. RAID 5 is a performance
increase over RAID 1.
Saving a blob in a database is a waste, IMHO. Save the file on the data
drive and store a link to it in the database.
If your goal is performance, blobs are counter productive.
HTH...
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID 5
arrays.
1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better than
having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data file
s?
2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does a
lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving a
photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files (blo
b
data) on thier own RAID 5 array?"Dan" wrote in message
news:C73453B5-76E7-4D6C-8A58-9ED1AC11A87A@.microsoft.com...
:I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
:
: I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
: and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID
5
: arrays.
:
: 1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better
than
: having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data
files?
:
: 2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
: database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does
a
: lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving
a
: photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
: non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files
(blob
: data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
Here is the idea:
RAID 1 (mirroring, duplexing) writes fast, reads normal
RAID 5 (distributed data guarding with parity) writes slow, reads very fast
Log files are written to more often than read from. RAID 1 is a performance
increase over RAID 5.
Data files are read more often than written to. RAID 5 is a performance
increase over RAID 1.
Saving a blob in a database is a waste, IMHO. Save the file on the data
drive and store a link to it in the database.
If your goal is performance, blobs are counter productive.
HTH...
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
best SCSI config
I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID 5
arrays.
1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better than
having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data files?
2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does a
lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving a
photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files (blob
data) on thier own RAID 5 array?"Dan" wrote in message
news:C73453B5-76E7-4D6C-8A58-9ED1AC11A87A@.microsoft.com...
:I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
:
: I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
: and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID
5
: arrays.
:
: 1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better
than
: having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data
files?
:
: 2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
: database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does
a
: lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving
a
: photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
: non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files
(blob
: data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
Here is the idea:
RAID 1 (mirroring, duplexing) writes fast, reads normal
RAID 5 (distributed data guarding with parity) writes slow, reads very fast
Log files are written to more often than read from. RAID 1 is a performance
increase over RAID 5.
Data files are read more often than written to. RAID 5 is a performance
increase over RAID 1.
Saving a blob in a database is a waste, IMHO. Save the file on the data
drive and store a link to it in the database.
If your goal is performance, blobs are counter productive.
HTH...
--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID 5
arrays.
1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better than
having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data files?
2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does a
lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving a
photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files (blob
data) on thier own RAID 5 array?"Dan" wrote in message
news:C73453B5-76E7-4D6C-8A58-9ED1AC11A87A@.microsoft.com...
:I am configuring a new db server and have a couple best practice questions.
:
: I read somewhere that a server confgured for SQL server should have its OS
: and transation log on a RAID 1 array, and the data file on 1 or more RAID
5
: arrays.
:
: 1.) Is having a RAID 1 array for the OS and transaction log much better
than
: having just one RAID 5 array that has the OS, transaction log, and data
files?
:
: 2.) We are recoding our web application to store pictures and files in the
: database rather than on the web servers file system. Our application does
a
: lot of loading and displaying of photos. How resource intensive is saving
a
: photo and retreiving it from the database? Will it greatly slow down
: non-photo transactions? Would I be wise to put all the photos and files
(blob
: data) on thier own RAID 5 array?
Here is the idea:
RAID 1 (mirroring, duplexing) writes fast, reads normal
RAID 5 (distributed data guarding with parity) writes slow, reads very fast
Log files are written to more often than read from. RAID 1 is a performance
increase over RAID 5.
Data files are read more often than written to. RAID 5 is a performance
increase over RAID 1.
Saving a blob in a database is a waste, IMHO. Save the file on the data
drive and store a link to it in the database.
If your goal is performance, blobs are counter productive.
HTH...
--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Best Raid Config for sql
Hello,
I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of drives.
I was thinking or either of the following
Option 1 --
RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
Option 2 --
RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
Option 3 --
RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
submit them.
Thanks,
Brian
So, you are not running a cluster, this is SQL on a dedicated stand alone
machine? This makes a big difference is what to do.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
> drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||Use 4 of the internal drives for OS,Binary, and TLOG files configured as
RAID-10
Buy a PowerVault 220S and set it up RAID-10 for SQL Data
Backup across the network to another host computer.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||i haven't decided on whether or not to use a cluster, please expain the best
option for both senarios.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> So, you are not running a cluster, this is SQL on a dedicated stand alone
> machine? This makes a big difference is what to do.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thank you for your response. However, purchasing more hardware is just not an
option at this point. What i am looking for is how to accomplish the best
case senarior with what I have.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Use 4 of the internal drives for OS,Binary, and TLOG files configured as
> RAID-10
> Buy a PowerVault 220S and set it up RAID-10 for SQL Data
> Backup across the network to another host computer.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> drives.
>
>
|||If you don't have any money, then you can't buy another server, so you can't
cluster.
Of the options below for a single server, I like Option 4 - OS/Backup RAID
1, RAID 5 for the rest data and logs.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9ABBC1D9-E43C-4E40-95BB-91A413C6853A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i haven't decided on whether or not to use a cluster, please expain the
>best
> option for both senarios.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||Actually I have two of the same machines so i could cluster. Also, please
explain why you like option 3. I was actaully leaning towards option 2
becuase later down the line i want to buy a 220s powervault and move the data
to that.
Also, instead of clustering i was looking a replicated between my 2 PE6650's
and using a NLB cluster insead of a SQL cluster. what are your thoughts on
that as well.
Thanks for all your help.
-Brian
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> If you don't have any money, then you can't buy another server, so you can't
> cluster.
> Of the options below for a single server, I like Option 4 - OS/Backup RAID
> 1, RAID 5 for the rest data and logs.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9ABBC1D9-E43C-4E40-95BB-91A413C6853A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
I'd go with Option 5:
RAID 1 - 2 drives OS/log (but split into two logical drives, C: OS , D:
Logs)
RAID 1 - 2 drives data
5th drive hotspare
Reasoning:
Logs should be backed up regularly, so you may get away with less disk
space, hence share space with OS. Since SQL Server tries to avoid swapping,
etc, once OS boots, this should be OK.
Data gets the most drive space.
You have a hotspare for failover.
If you really need disk space, go with RAID5 and put data there. Avoid logs
on RAID5 as much as possible.
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||Ok, if whatever you will do, you will buy something else later, then it
really does not matter now
I like Option 4 - modified because it comes closer to best practices. You
need more drives for RAID 10, which you did not have, yet.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:66BAEF03-C4A0-4909-B932-455F3732B25D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually I have two of the same machines so i could cluster. Also, please
> explain why you like option 3. I was actaully leaning towards option 2
> becuase later down the line i want to buy a 220s powervault and move the
> data
> to that.
> Also, instead of clustering i was looking a replicated between my 2
> PE6650's
> and using a NLB cluster insead of a SQL cluster. what are your thoughts on
> that as well.
> Thanks for all your help.
> -Brian
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I use the OS + Logs on a single RAID container sometimes on my smaller
systems. You are absolutely correct that once the system is up and running,
there should be no paging and very little code loading. This leaves most of
the bandwidth available for SQL log writes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:BWKDd.130023$Uf.36761@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> drives.
> I'd go with Option 5:
> RAID 1 - 2 drives OS/log (but split into two logical drives, C: OS , D:
> Logs)
> RAID 1 - 2 drives data
> 5th drive hotspare
> Reasoning:
> Logs should be backed up regularly, so you may get away with less disk
> space, hence share space with OS. Since SQL Server tries to avoid
swapping,
> etc, once OS boots, this should be OK.
> Data gets the most drive space.
> You have a hotspare for failover.
> If you really need disk space, go with RAID5 and put data there. Avoid
logs
> on RAID5 as much as possible.
>
>
>
I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of drives.
I was thinking or either of the following
Option 1 --
RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
Option 2 --
RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
Option 3 --
RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
submit them.
Thanks,
Brian
So, you are not running a cluster, this is SQL on a dedicated stand alone
machine? This makes a big difference is what to do.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
> drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||Use 4 of the internal drives for OS,Binary, and TLOG files configured as
RAID-10
Buy a PowerVault 220S and set it up RAID-10 for SQL Data
Backup across the network to another host computer.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||i haven't decided on whether or not to use a cluster, please expain the best
option for both senarios.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> So, you are not running a cluster, this is SQL on a dedicated stand alone
> machine? This makes a big difference is what to do.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thank you for your response. However, purchasing more hardware is just not an
option at this point. What i am looking for is how to accomplish the best
case senarior with what I have.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Use 4 of the internal drives for OS,Binary, and TLOG files configured as
> RAID-10
> Buy a PowerVault 220S and set it up RAID-10 for SQL Data
> Backup across the network to another host computer.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> drives.
>
>
|||If you don't have any money, then you can't buy another server, so you can't
cluster.
Of the options below for a single server, I like Option 4 - OS/Backup RAID
1, RAID 5 for the rest data and logs.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9ABBC1D9-E43C-4E40-95BB-91A413C6853A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i haven't decided on whether or not to use a cluster, please expain the
>best
> option for both senarios.
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||Actually I have two of the same machines so i could cluster. Also, please
explain why you like option 3. I was actaully leaning towards option 2
becuase later down the line i want to buy a 220s powervault and move the data
to that.
Also, instead of clustering i was looking a replicated between my 2 PE6650's
and using a NLB cluster insead of a SQL cluster. what are your thoughts on
that as well.
Thanks for all your help.
-Brian
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
> If you don't have any money, then you can't buy another server, so you can't
> cluster.
> Of the options below for a single server, I like Option 4 - OS/Backup RAID
> 1, RAID 5 for the rest data and logs.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9ABBC1D9-E43C-4E40-95BB-91A413C6853A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have a Dell PE6650 with only 5 drives(15k). what is the best raid
> configuation i can acheive for higest performace with this amount of
drives.
> I was thinking or either of the following
> Option 1 --
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - os and backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
> Option 2 --
> RAID 10 - 4 drives - everything
> Option 3 --
> RAID 5 - 3 drives - os backups
> RAID 1 - 2 drives - data and log
I'd go with Option 5:
RAID 1 - 2 drives OS/log (but split into two logical drives, C: OS , D:
Logs)
RAID 1 - 2 drives data
5th drive hotspare
Reasoning:
Logs should be backed up regularly, so you may get away with less disk
space, hence share space with OS. Since SQL Server tries to avoid swapping,
etc, once OS boots, this should be OK.
Data gets the most drive space.
You have a hotspare for failover.
If you really need disk space, go with RAID5 and put data there. Avoid logs
on RAID5 as much as possible.
> which of this would be best, or if you have any other suggestions please
> submit them.
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
|||Ok, if whatever you will do, you will buy something else later, then it
really does not matter now
I like Option 4 - modified because it comes closer to best practices. You
need more drives for RAID 10, which you did not have, yet.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:66BAEF03-C4A0-4909-B932-455F3732B25D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually I have two of the same machines so i could cluster. Also, please
> explain why you like option 3. I was actaully leaning towards option 2
> becuase later down the line i want to buy a 220s powervault and move the
> data
> to that.
> Also, instead of clustering i was looking a replicated between my 2
> PE6650's
> and using a NLB cluster insead of a SQL cluster. what are your thoughts on
> that as well.
> Thanks for all your help.
> -Brian
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||I use the OS + Logs on a single RAID container sometimes on my smaller
systems. You are absolutely correct that once the system is up and running,
there should be no paging and very little code loading. This leaves most of
the bandwidth available for SQL log writes.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:BWKDd.130023$Uf.36761@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "bribonfi" <bribonfi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47C647B2-E889-4A1F-A438-296D7D6A1BD1@.microsoft.com...
> drives.
> I'd go with Option 5:
> RAID 1 - 2 drives OS/log (but split into two logical drives, C: OS , D:
> Logs)
> RAID 1 - 2 drives data
> 5th drive hotspare
> Reasoning:
> Logs should be backed up regularly, so you may get away with less disk
> space, hence share space with OS. Since SQL Server tries to avoid
swapping,
> etc, once OS boots, this should be OK.
> Data gets the most drive space.
> You have a hotspare for failover.
> If you really need disk space, go with RAID5 and put data there. Avoid
logs
> on RAID5 as much as possible.
>
>
>
Friday, February 24, 2012
Best Config
I have a windows 2K server using SQL 2K. I am trying to
indentify what RAID configuation I should use for the
best performance. The application is an OLTP variety. I
have 5 physical disks. What would be the best set-up
(performance is more important than redundancy). If you
need any more info please ask. TIA.
MarcusAlthough the number of concurrent users is a potential issue.
Mirror the log, raid 10 the data ( but you don't have enough disk for that)
so
Mirror the log, raid 0 the data (stripe with stripe size of 64K)
opinions will vary... but avoiding raid 5, will give you a write improvement
( R5 has at least a 75% write penalty.)
But this will not give you data redundancy, but you can get up to the minute
recovery without loss ofdata...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and its
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Marcus" <marcus12@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d4a01c36268$9feebd10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a windows 2K server using SQL 2K. I am trying to
> indentify what RAID configuation I should use for the
> best performance. The application is an OLTP variety. I
> have 5 physical disks. What would be the best set-up
> (performance is more important than redundancy). If you
> need any more info please ask. TIA.
> Marcus
>
indentify what RAID configuation I should use for the
best performance. The application is an OLTP variety. I
have 5 physical disks. What would be the best set-up
(performance is more important than redundancy). If you
need any more info please ask. TIA.
MarcusAlthough the number of concurrent users is a potential issue.
Mirror the log, raid 10 the data ( but you don't have enough disk for that)
so
Mirror the log, raid 0 the data (stripe with stripe size of 64K)
opinions will vary... but avoiding raid 5, will give you a write improvement
( R5 has at least a 75% write penalty.)
But this will not give you data redundancy, but you can get up to the minute
recovery without loss ofdata...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and its
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Marcus" <marcus12@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d4a01c36268$9feebd10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a windows 2K server using SQL 2K. I am trying to
> indentify what RAID configuation I should use for the
> best performance. The application is an OLTP variety. I
> have 5 physical disks. What would be the best set-up
> (performance is more important than redundancy). If you
> need any more info please ask. TIA.
> Marcus
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)