Post reply

New Contingency Server Implementation

  • April 22, 2004 at 7:03 am

    #85187

    <FONT face=Tahoma color=#3333dd>Hi,</FONT>

    <FONT face=Tahoma color=#3333dd>We are implementing new Contingency Server this weekend.Can you guys please let me know if the config looks okay?</FONT>

    <FONT face=Tahoma color=#3333dd>SYSTEM + APPS 2 x 18 GB 16 GB RAID 1

    SQLDATA 4 x 72 GB 132 GBRAID 10

    SQLLOG 4 x 18GB 64 GB RAID 0

    BACKUPS 4 x 72 GB 198 GB RAID 5</FONT>

    <FONT face=Tahoma color=#3333dd>Do we need to have LOGs on RAID 10 rather than RAID 0 ???</FONT>

    .

  • April 22, 2004 at 7:16 am

    #503815

    I'd put the logs on Raid 1 myself you don't really won't to lose them if a disk fails. Which they seem to be doing a lot more in recent machines we've had.

    I

  • April 22, 2004 at 7:30 am

    #503817

    I'd agree with the logs on a RAID1 or 10. I'd put nothing on a raid0 except my desktop.


    Shamless self promotion - read my blog http://sirsql.net

  • April 22, 2004 at 8:43 am

    #503851

    Initially I had thought about putting logs on RAID 10, but then wanted to see the performance increase on this... Thats the only reason I was thinking about RAID 0.... Seems like a stupid idea of mine...

    I would switch to RAID 10..... Thanks for your responses

    .

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply