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 |
|
bigbelly
Starting Member
39 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-05-10 : 01:40:37
|
| Hi Folks,I just got a new server for my 2 databases. Its configuration is 4 CPUs/2.5G memory and 4 hard disks(76GB/disk). I'm thinking to configure it to RAID 5. But just read something lately saying "RAID 10 is good for writing while RAID 5 is excellent for reading". I'm thinking whether I should get 2 more hard disks and make current 4 disks in RAID 5 and configure those 2 new ones to RAID 10. In that case I can leave those 2 databases' MDF in RAID 5 and put the their transaction log files in RAID 10. And should i put Tempdb MDF and LDF in the RAID 10 as well? Anyone could shed some lights on this issue?Thanks1 |
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-05-10 : 08:12:24
|
| You'll need four disks for RAID 10. You can go with RAID 1 if you wish. My preferences on SQL Server is the following:Data - RAID 5Log - RAID 10Tempdb - Seperate RAID 10 or RAID 1 set.OS - Seperate RAID 1 set.MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
 |
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2004-05-10 : 13:31:10
|
| Since you only have four disks to work with, I'd go with a RAID 10 setup. This is only gonna give you about 147GB's of space, but it will be fast, and that's what is important.If you can get a few more disks, I'd separate things out like Derrick reccomends. You'll probably want to get the Logs on their own array if possible.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
bigbelly
Starting Member
39 Posts |
Posted - 2004-05-11 : 03:55:40
|
| Thanks for you guys response. Really appreciated.I'm getting another 2 disks now. Since the new server could only have maximum 6 disks. So can't go for RAID 5 and RAID 10 combination. Seems the gain of using RAID 1 instead of RAID 5 is not as big as RAID 10 over RAID 5. So I'm thinking about configuring all 6 disks to RAID 10. Actually my situation is I have one database server with 4 disks configured as RAID 5 by ex system admin. And it has 3 databases there serving our 3 intranets. I'm planning to move 2 of them to the new one and use linked server to let them communicate with another database on the old server. At the same time I'm thinking whether it's a good idea to rebuild the old server and make it RAID 10 and leave the new server as RAID 5? Then leave all 3 databases' log in server with RAID 10 and data in server with RAID 5. is it allowed to do in this way? (Of coz I'm gonna use cross-over cable to link this 2 server's by their Gigabyte port) |
|
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-05-11 : 07:45:16
|
| You can't really do that. To do that you would need to have an external storage device and set the servers up as a cluster, unless you can figure out a way to make it work. You don't want to use linked server if you can avoid it. It's quite a bit of overhead. I think I would lean towards six disks configured like this:2 Disks - RAID 1 --Have your OS and log files on this server. There's not a whole lot of activity on the OS files. The logs are sequential.4 Disks - RAID 5 or RAID 10 --Have only your data files on here. --If you can afford the extra redundancy and lack of space go with 10. This is expensive though, so RAID 5 is probably a better solution for you.MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
JohnDeere
Posting Yak Master
191 Posts |
Posted - 2004-05-17 : 11:56:13
|
| Be sure you understand how the Raid 1+0 is implemented on the hardware.You want 1+0 and not 0+1 The following link does a good job of explaining the differences.[url]http://www.ofb.net/~jheiss/raid10/[/url]Lance Harra |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAID 0/1/10 or 5?