Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
SqlZ
Yak Posting Veteran
69 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-04-02 : 09:08:22
|
| I have recently taken on a project where a database was developed by a previous DBA with 3 data files:1. Data File - Primary File Group2. Index File - Secondary File Group3. Image File - Secondary File Groupand was wondering why the previous DBA did this because we only have one smart disk array with a raid 5 for data, raid 1 for logs, and another raid 1 for the Quorum drive. This is attached to two Compaq DL 380s with 4GB ram, 4 Xeon processors w HT, 3 channel controller, and raid 5 for OS for the nodes of the Active/Passive cluster. Wouldn't the separate data files only benefit me if I have separate raid arrays for them? Also, the database is only 6 GB so do I really need a secondary file group? Also, is it sufficient for one controller to handle the raid 5/raid 1/raid 1 or should each raid have its own controller?Thanks in advance. I just thought if you were going to have separate files/filegroups they should be on separate hardware or else the extra files/filegroups are pointless.As always thanks for the help. |
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-04-02 : 12:14:18
|
| The reason why he did this is probably for scalability.Down the road, if you do get more arrays, it's going to be easy to move things around to take advantage for teh new arrays. If you had one big file, it would not be as easy. It might also make backups and restores a bit quicker if you only need part of the data.RAID 5 for the OS? That seems strange, but I guess it works.A single controller should be able to handle three RAID arrays. I hope that the three arrays are on three different SCSI channels on the card. How many cables do you have plugged into the SCSI card? If it's one, that's bad. If it's three, you are fine.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
 |
|
|
SqlZ
Yak Posting Veteran
69 Posts |
Posted - 2004-04-02 : 13:28:00
|
| Thanks Michael. Each array is plugged into a channel on the controller but I was just curious if one controller per array would benefit the array in any way. I guess I would need to cross that bridge once I exhausted the number of drives in each array or something. Definitely not happening any time soon.Thanks again! |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-04-02 : 13:44:54
|
| Generally, if a controller has multiple channels on it, the card has enough horsepower to run all of them at the same time.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-04-02 : 20:05:57
|
| Another thing you might look at is if your server has multiple channels. Many times you have different slots on different channels. If you can install two adaptors on two seperate channels, you provide the ability to load balance across the bus architecture.On the Compaq DL 380s, make sure you aren't using the default base controller card that comes with the server when you buy it though. They are slow and you can get much better cards.If you have money to spend and have pretty much any other card, invest it in memory if there is room to expand it.MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hardware Question