RAID 10 will improve performance over RAID 5.
Hopefully, you will never see a multiple drive failure. Do you make sure
that all drives come from different manufacturing batches. (Think product
recall: due to some manufacturing 'glitch', all products in a sequence may
be defective.)
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"stosti"
discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BEF8A47-A10F-417E-A375-FDBEBF36B4AB@microsoft.com...> Hi,
>
> What would this configuration do for performance? I'm not worried about a
> 2
> disk failure. I have been in this business for over 10 years. I can
> count
> all the disk failures on one hand. I have never seen two disks failure in
> the same RAID.
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
>> I'd change the RAID5 to RAID10. You'll have the same effective
>> capacity -
>> 600GB - and better performance. Also, if 2 drives fail in RAID 5, you're
>> down. In RAID 10, there are several 2-disk failure scenarios in which
>> you
>> are still up. With a 4-disk RAID10, only 2 out of 6 2-disk failures will
>> bring you down.
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>>
>> "stosti"
discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C1D19A45-BA4C-48CF-AFB5-5B63A7D3A680@microsoft.com...
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm building a new SQL 2000 server. I typically use HP DL380 machines
>> with
>> split backplane. SCSI controller one will have a pair of 72 GB drivesin
>> RAID
>> 1 (C:). This will be used for the operating system. SCSI controller two
>> will have 4 300 GB drives in a RAID 5. Three of the drives will make up
>> the
>> RAID 5 and the forth will be an online spair. SQL will be installed on
>> the
>> RAID 5 (D:).
>>
>> Is this configuration ok? Is there a prefered way to set them up? This
>> setup is fine for recovery but maybe not optimal for performance?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
