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.
>
>
>

Best Performance Strip setting RAID

We are running SQL6.5 and plan to upgrade to SQL2000. I'm wondering what's the best stripe size for the RAID 5 configuration. 8,16,32 or 64 kb.
The database is 90% used for read actions. Only during night complete refill of data and write actions only for statistics. Any advise is welcome on this subjectSince SQL server pages are 64K the raid stripe settings must also be set to 64K|||SQL 6.5 uses 2k pages and SQL 2000 uses 8k pages.

The stripe size of your RAID drives does NOT have to follow the page size, however I would use a RAID stripe size >= to my page size.

Best performance for SQL2000

Hi
i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
cluster ad have think this configuration :
1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated) and
security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
Thanks in advanceMake the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
make it a raid 10 for better performance.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> cluster ad have think this configuration :
> 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
and
> security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> Thanks in advance
>|||Ok therefore :
datafile RAID5
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
it's ok ?
thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> >
> > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> >
> > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> and
> > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>|||Yes
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:ORYQO1aoEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many
writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile
separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Even better:
datafile RAID10
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
Regards
Mike
"io.com" wrote:
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

best location for the tran log?

I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
- the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
of the data?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!There shouldn't be a problem with sharing a mirrored drive with the OS for
the logs if SQL Server is the only app running on the server.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"T Dubya" <timber_toes@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:%23Qx5Um0LFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||I'd recommend that you move the transaction log for a couple of reasons.
1. By having the transaction log and data files on the same drives you risk
a loss on failure, or an extension in time to restore.
2. RAID 5 is not as efficient as RAID 1 for performance of the write
intensive transaction log.
If the server is dedicated to SQL server then there should be very little
competition for the drive from other processes.
"T Dubya" wrote:

> I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>|||Thanks, Andrew, for the response. I'll give it a try. The main reason
I had reservations about it is because before I realized that the D
drive was in fact just a logical partition of the system drive, I tried
to dump the entire database to that location. The database dump ran
much slower that way than when I dumped it to the same raid 5 where the
data itself resides - about twice as slow, in fact. I just wanted to be
sure that putting the tran logs on the operating system drive wouldn't
cause a similar slow down. Since it is a dedicated SQL Server hopefully
it won't pose a problem. Thanks again.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

best location for the tran log?

I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
- the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
of the data?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!There shouldn't be a problem with sharing a mirrored drive with the OS for
the logs if SQL Server is the only app running on the server.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"T Dubya" <timber_toes@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:%23Qx5Um0LFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||I'd recommend that you move the transaction log for a couple of reasons.
1. By having the transaction log and data files on the same drives you risk
a loss on failure, or an extension in time to restore.
2. RAID 5 is not as efficient as RAID 1 for performance of the write
intensive transaction log.
If the server is dedicated to SQL server then there should be very little
competition for the drive from other processes.
"T Dubya" wrote:
> I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>

best location for the tran log?

I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
- the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
of the data?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
There shouldn't be a problem with sharing a mirrored drive with the OS for
the logs if SQL Server is the only app running on the server.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"T Dubya" <timber_toes@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:%23Qx5Um0LFHA.3340@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||I'd recommend that you move the transaction log for a couple of reasons.
1. By having the transaction log and data files on the same drives you risk
a loss on failure, or an extension in time to restore.
2. RAID 5 is not as efficient as RAID 1 for performance of the write
intensive transaction log.
If the server is dedicated to SQL server then there should be very little
competition for the drive from other processes.
"T Dubya" wrote:

> I have a SQL 2000 database on RAID 5 storage. The data files and the
> tran log are all on the same RAID 5 volume - the E drive. My only other
> option for placement of the tran log is a partition of the system drive
> - the D drive. The system drive is mirrored. The operating system
> resides on the other logical partition of the system drive - the C
> drive. I'm concerned that if I move the tran log to the D drive it
> might conflict with operating system activity. This is a dedicated SQL
> Server so I'm hoping that it won't be too much overhead on the system
> drive to place the tran log there as well. Am I better off moving the
> tran log to the system drive or keeping it on the E drive with the rest
> of the data?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>
|||Thanks, Andrew, for the response. I'll give it a try. The main reason
I had reservations about it is because before I realized that the D
drive was in fact just a logical partition of the system drive, I tried
to dump the entire database to that location. The database dump ran
much slower that way than when I dumped it to the same raid 5 where the
data itself resides - about twice as slow, in fact. I just wanted to be
sure that putting the tran logs on the operating system drive wouldn't
cause a similar slow down. Since it is a dedicated SQL Server hopefully
it won't pose a problem. Thanks again.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

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
>

Benchmarking a server

is there a freebie utility/database that could benchmark a sqlserver?
Would like to try out different disk configurations (raid, swapfile
location, cluster size, etc) for getting the best results.

Or would I be better off writing a load script to stress the server on
a copy of my own database?

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.Trevor Best <bouncer@.localhost> wrote in message news:<t8113013fufan78fg8rkaj71908clb0n44@.4ax.com>...
> is there a freebie utility/database that could benchmark a sqlserver?
> Would like to try out different disk configurations (raid, swapfile
> location, cluster size, etc) for getting the best results.
> Or would I be better off writing a load script to stress the server on
> a copy of my own database?

Depending on what you want to test, this is one possible tool:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...9&Product=sql2k

The SQL 2000 Resource Kit has a tool called DB Hammer (or something
similar) which creates multiple client connections.

But if you want to test how fast various processes (meaning stored
procedure or application code) run, then the best test will be to use
your own test database, because then you know that you're testing
something which is meaningful for you.

Simon