| Author |
Topic |
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
 Posted - 2006-03-28 : 17:33:13
|
| We have a small SQL setup - our main DB is only around 300MB and there are a max of around 25 users, with only half that number realistically accessing at once.I am in the process of setting up a new server to migrate our existing setup to. I have 3 drives (SCSI) and 2 36GB drives. What is the best RAID setup for this? Should I use the 2 36GB drives for RAID1 (O/S) and the the 3 72GB drives in RAID5 for the data ?Just want the best overall performance for the 5 drives we have? thanks |
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-28 : 17:48:37
|
| Yes, that's exactly what I would do, assuming your database is pretty read heavy which most OLTP databases are. Put the two RAID arrays on different SCSI channels, put your OS and TXLogs on the RAID 1 and put your data and indexes on the RAID 5.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. Cursors, path to the Dark Side they are. Avoid them, you must. Use Order By NewID() to get a random record you will.</Yoda>Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of TeleVox Software, inc. All information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights. |
 |
|
|
mr_mist
Grunnio
1870 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 02:39:41
|
| Yeah. Then if that doesn't quite perform, get another raid card and a couple more drives specifically for the logs, and stripe them.-------Moo. :) |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 03:37:36
|
| Thanks for the help, guys. We only have 1 HP Smart Array 614 SCSI controller and I was going to connect all the drives to this, is this not advisable? They are all HP Drives and all 15k speed. I'm also trying to keep costs down, too.thanks dudes - your help is much appreciated :)Craig |
|
|
|
mr_mist
Grunnio
1870 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 03:45:22
|
| If cost is your overriding factor then you don't have much choice. You'd get better performance by splitting the functions (log, etc) across different controllers.-------Moo. :) |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 04:14:31
|
| just throw a lot of RAM in your server. A 300MB database is nothing, you will probably have the entire DB in buffer cache anyway.Go with the RAID 5 solution that you mentioned, but keep your options open in the future for adding an extra controller and drives. -ec |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 04:48:28
|
| Thanks Mr Mist! Well, we actually DO have another identical SCSI controller, but I had intended to install it in a new exchange server I was going to set up. I've already pinched the extra 2 drives from it for the new SQL box - lolOh well, as IT admins, we can only deal with what we have :(Edit: Would it be easier (when migrating our current SQL server) to install/move the SQL setup across 'exactly' as is (it currently all resides on a C:\ partition on it's server), and then, when it's setup on the new box, 'then' change the location of the logs/data etc?Edit2: How much slower at write operations, would a RAID5 setup be, as opposed to a single disk non-RAID setup ?cheers |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 06:57:10
|
| Hi eyechart,You suggested to go with the RAID 5 option, do you mean just stick with RAID 5 for the WHOLE system?Oh, you also said throw plenty RAM into the server, well the server has 2GB installed. Our database is never going to grow massive in the next few years (double, if that) and there is no chance of additional users qureying the server as our staff levels remain consistent.Think this should be fine?thanks a lot mateCraig |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-29 : 11:27:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by ras2a
Hi eyechart,You suggested to go with the RAID 5 option, do you mean just stick with RAID 5 for the WHOLE system?Oh, you also said throw plenty RAM into the server, well the server has 2GB installed. Our database is never going to grow massive in the next few years (double, if that) and there is no chance of additional users qureying the server as our staff levels remain consistent.Think this should be fine?thanks a lot mateCraig
no, I was suggesting you go with the option you outlined in your first message. The mirroset for the OS and the 3 drive RAID 5 for the database datafiles.-ec |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-30 : 04:14:02
|
| Ok cheers. Again, would it be 'easier' to set up the RAID arrays, install SQL as standard on the C:\ partition, and THEN move the dabases across to the other RAID5 array? I'm only thinking this because we have to actually move our old databases across first and these are currently setup all on the one C:\ drive?cheersCraig |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-30 : 08:49:19
|
| Thanks dudes, I've re-setup the server. RAID1 (2x36GB drives) for the OS and SQL logs and RAID5 (3x72GB drives) for the databases etc.Unfortunately, we could only afford to use one RAID controller, but I'm hoping that performance is somewhat better than it would have been just running on a purely RAID5 setup.thanks again, guysCraig |
|
|
|
elwoos
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2052 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-31 : 02:13:50
|
| Craig I have a similar setup, fairly small db (around 2GB). Mirrored drives for the OS, 3 drives in raid 5 for the data. This all works fine for me with about 100 users, rarely more than 40 concurrently. I did manage to get hold of two more discs which are now mirrored and have moved the transaction logs to them but the performance improvements from the users perspective is negligible. You should be fine.steve-----------Oh, so they have internet on computers now! |
|
|
|
ras2a
Yak Posting Veteran
66 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-31 : 03:33:09
|
| Thanks a lot mate, you've put my mind at ease there.cheersCraig |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-31 : 16:13:13
|
| All of that coupled with the 300MB database, and you should be more than fine. Once you get that database over the amount of RAM that you have in the system, then your RAID configu is going to come into play.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will. Cursors, path to the Dark Side they are. Avoid them, you must. Use Order By NewID() to get a random record you will.</Yoda>Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of TeleVox Software, inc. All information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights. |
|
|
|
|
Best RAID for small SQL setup, with 5 HDDs