| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
cfli1688c1
Starting Member
USA
3 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2012 : 13:39:22
|
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
15559 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2012 : 14:25:04
|
| 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. |
 |
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
USA
1959 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2012 : 04:09:17
|
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? |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
USA
15559 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2012 : 06:27:01
|
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. |
|
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
USA
1959 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2012 : 13:07:49
|
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 |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
USA
15559 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2012 : 13:41:33
|
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. |
|
|
|
jackv
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
United Kingdom
1771 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 02:29:14
|
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 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
mssql 2012 recommanded disk configuration
