June 11, 2003 at 12:45 pm
I know a good configuration for SQL Server 2K is a combo of a RAID 5 array for reads and RAID 1 array for writes. What about RAID 10?
Is it OK to have 1 big RAID 10 array or does it make more sense to do something like one RAID 1 array each for trans log/OS and one RAID 10 array for the data files, as it the RAID 5 configuration?
June 11, 2003 at 5:44 pm
Performanced wise RAID 10 is best do to the number of read and writes, plus it provides redundancy. But you may see added performance gains by having the additional drive to placxe you TL on (again 10 is preferred becaues of the stripping). But consider cost first and for most. If you will need extra space and are strapped for cash most times then plan to use RAID 5 (or even multiple RAID 5s) instead to get the performance of stripping with redundancy this will give you long term size. If you can get the hardware you need when you need it then aim if possible for multiple RAID 10s, just make sure you can justify the cost.
June 12, 2003 at 10:47 am
We standardize on RAID 1 for OS, RAID 1 for logs, RAID 5 for data. Sometimes split that further. For one high end DSS system we went with RAID 10 for the data to speed reads, but it was $$$. Hard to justify the cost for other systems.
Steve Jones
http://qa.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
June 12, 2003 at 11:55 am
If you're using DELL, let me know...there are some major "issues" with RAID 10.
-Dan
-Dan
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply