SQL Server Forums
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
 
Register Now and get your question answered!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 SQL Server 2012 Forums
 Other SQL Server 2012 Topics
 mssql 2012 recommanded disk configuration
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

cfli1688c1
Starting Member

USA
3 Posts

Posted - 07/23/2012 :  13:39:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We are looking into deployment mssql 2012 in a few months. We have version 2008 and used raid5 and raid10 for log and data storage. Would the same disk configuration work for mssql 2012. Anyone has a best practice for disk configuration for mssql 2012?

thanks

robvolk
Most Valuable Yak

USA
15678 Posts

Posted - 07/23/2012 :  14:25:04  Show Profile  Visit robvolk's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The disk recommendations don't change between versions. You should avoid RAID 5 as much as possible, especially for write-intensive databases, and most especially for the transaction log.
Go to Top of Page

chadmat
The Chadinator

USA
1974 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2012 :  04:09:17  Show Profile  Visit chadmat's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by robvolk

The disk recommendations don't change between versions. You should avoid RAID 5 as much as possible, especially for write-intensive databases, and most especially for the transaction log.



Rob, is tis a joke?
Go to Top of Page

robvolk
Most Valuable Yak

USA
15678 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2012 :  06:27:01  Show Profile  Visit robvolk's Homepage  Reply with Quote
That's what I've been brought up to believe.

I'm waaaaay behind on disks and SANs, and currently using FusionIO almost exclusively, so please correct my misconceptions.
Go to Top of Page

chadmat
The Chadinator

USA
1974 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2012 :  13:07:49  Show Profile  Visit chadmat's Homepage  Reply with Quote
haha, just reread it. For some reason I thought you said you should USE RAID 5 as much as possible for write intensive...

My fault. No more late night Forum sessions

-Chad
Go to Top of Page

robvolk
Most Valuable Yak

USA
15678 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2012 :  13:41:33  Show Profile  Visit robvolk's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The day you see me recommend RAID 5 for anyone is the day I blow up the world, myself included.

I have heard from a few people that most high-end SANs these days have enough cache and throughput that the underlying RAID level is immaterial. Typically people get stuck with it because the SAN admin only cares about maximizing space.
Go to Top of Page

jackv
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

United Kingdom
2067 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2012 :  02:29:14  Show Profile  Visit jackv's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Good point about SAN cache. Many DBAs say "use RAID 10 for write intensive" , but if a large cache exists on SAN - that usually takes care of the writes, with the cache managing internal arrays for writes to disk. The RAID 10 question then is not so important
In the review process – say example , RAID 5 v RAID 10 configurations. Matching I\O patterns should be basis of the review in identifying the RAID configurations. For example, a DBA may say: acceptance levels maybe Data files < 3-4 ms and Log Files < 2 ms.
Also, there are cost implications for using RAID 10 v RAID 5



Jack Vamvas
--------------------
http://www.sqlserver-dba.com
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.23 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000