Re: Best practice - disks/RAID
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Best practice - disks/RAID         

Group: microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup · Group Profile
Author: Andrew J. Kelly
Date: Jan 29, 2008 14:10

High Utilization is relative so it is hard to give you an exact answer. Are
you talking about 100 trans a sec or 10,000 a sec? Will it be large
transactions or small ones? If all you can have is 8 drives then you are
limited in what you can support. You can usually get by with a Raid 1 for
the OS and potentially place the transaction logs (including Tempdb) on
there as well, just no data files. You can then have a 6 disk Raid 10 for
the user and tempdb data files. Another choice is to have a 4 disk Raid 10
for the user data and a Raid 1 for tempdb data files. But it all depend son
your app and how you use the data. You should test each way to see what
works best under your actual load.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors

"weaverbeaver" discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB0D775C-07F1-4115-930D-26EB2B309B2F@microsoft.com...
>
> I am looking to order hardware for a new SQL server to run SQL 2005 for a
> high utilisation database (lots of database writes). We don't have a SAN
> so I
> was looking to spec a server with 8 15k SAS drives configured as RAID 10
> as
> all docs seem to point to this as providing the best performance (I am
> limited to 8 disks for the corporate choice of server). My question
> relates
> to other articles which say transaction logs should be on a dedicated
> disk,
> tempdb should be on a dedicated disk if highly utilised (which this is).
> Then
> there is the best practice of having the OS on a seperate mirrored pair
> for
> resillience. I am quickly running out of physical disks to use RAID10
> which
> is wasteful in terms of disks.
>
> For best performance, Should I go down the raid10 route and have
> everything
> on the same RAID volume (allbeit partitioned) or am I better off moving
> away
> from RAID 10 in favour of seperating the OS, transaction logs and
> database,
> tempdb etc?
>
> I appreciate this may be dependant on many factors but any advice would be
> much appreciated
>
> regards
>
> Karl
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!