 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / General / Setup / November 2006Installation Recommendation
Win2k3 Server RAID5 with 5 disks 20GB system partition (C:) and about 300GB unpartition Trying to install SQL 2000 (not 2005) on the above machine. What is the recommended setup? Install SQL system files on C: and database on 300GB partition? Separate log and db? Anyone? Thanks. > Win2k3 Server > RAID5 with 5 disks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > recommended setup? Install SQL system files on C: and database on 300GB > partition? Separate log and db? Anyone? Thanks. ooopss.. I meant to say RAID5 with 4 physical disks, not 5 disks. > > Win2k3 Server > > RAID5 with 5 disks [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ooopss.. I meant to say RAID5 with 4 physical disks, not 5 disks. RAID5 is not optimal for databases. Since you have 4 disks, you would get a better performance with 2 RAID-1 arrays (2 disks each). On one array you would setup the O/S, the program files and the transaction logs. On the other you would put the databases. If your controller does support it, a 4 disks RAID-10 array would be good also. In which case all your databases and logs would be on the same array, but they would benefit from a bigger disks span. Regards, lucm >>>Win2k3 Server >>>RAID5 with 5 disks [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Regards, > lucm Sure RAID10 sounds like a great idea. However, I'm pressured with time and can't afford to read RAID controller manual. Btw, I'm dealing with PERC5/i integrated RAID controller. I'm not even sure how to reconfigure the array. Therefore I'll leave it as RAID5 with about 300GB unpartitioned space. How should I configure this? Just put all db and logs in the 300GB space? This SQL server won't be heavily used (it's only a 10-20 user environment). I am sure installation on a huge RAID5 will be ok. Thanks again. You have logical drives (SLOW) on a single array (SLOW). Add to that the fact that it is a RAID 5 array (REALLY SLOW) and you've got the worst of all possible configurations at this point.I f you aren't going to reconfigure the array, it almost doesn't matter. Put the SQL program & log files on C: and the databases on D:. No matter what you do it is going to be slow..... It's apparent that you have a Dell. It's not that hard to configure the 4 drive array as 2 GB RAID 1 arrays. Try calling Dell. I've worked with both the standard and gold support and it will take about 15 minutes to walk you through it. Regards, Hank Arnold >>>> Win2k3 Server >>>> RAID5 with 5 disks [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > environment). I am sure installation on a huge RAID5 will be ok. Thanks > again. > You have logical drives (SLOW) on a single array (SLOW). Add to that > the fact that it is a RAID 5 array (REALLY SLOW) and you've got the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> environment). I am sure installation on a huge RAID5 will be ok. >> Thanks again. I've looked at PERC5/i config BIOS. Don't see any option to break the array and rebuild. Heck, I'll just redirect SQL db on the largest volume. I wish I had enough time to rework the array. Thanks for your reply. > You have logical drives (SLOW) on a single array (SLOW). Add to that > the fact that it is a RAID 5 array (REALLY SLOW) and you've got the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> environment). I am sure installation on a huge RAID5 will be ok. >> Thanks again. Btw, speaking of RAID10, if I got 4 HDs of (let's say) 100GB each, once configured as RAID10, what will I end up with? A single 200GB RAID volume (100GB+100GB striped and the other 2 HDs is the mirror set)? (perhaps I can configure my OS volume to be 20GB for example and use the rest as SQL db volume) If so, it doesn't really matter where I put SQL logs and db files because it is a large RAID volume, correct? Thanks again. > Btw, speaking of RAID10, if I got 4 HDs of (let's say) 100GB each, once > configured as RAID10, what will I end up with? A single 200GB RAID [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If so, it doesn't really matter where I put SQL logs and db files > because it is a large RAID volume, correct? Thanks again. This is correct. It does not actually matter how you split your 200GB, since the RAID is spanning all your disks. It is a common practice to have a separate partition for the O/S, especially for reinstallation/upgrade matters. As for myself I'd rather go with a single large partition, it offers more flexibility and less space is wasted. Regards, lucm >>If so, it doesn't really matter where I put SQL logs and db files >>because it is a large RAID volume, correct? Thanks again. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Regards, > lucm That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it. >>Btw, speaking of RAID10, if I got 4 HDs of (let's say) 100GB each, once >>configured as RAID10, what will I end up with? A single 200GB RAID [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Regards, > lucm Finally... I was able to buy me some time to reconfigure the array from RAID5 to RAID10. Here the before and after: Before (RAID5 with 4 disks. All 4 HDs connected to the same SCSI channel): SCSI ch1 - HD1, HD2, HD3, HD4 SCSI ch2 - not used After (RAID10 with 4 disks. 2 HDs connected to ch1 and the other 2 HDs connected to ch2): SCSI ch1 - HD1, HD2 (striped) SCSI ch2 - HD3, HD4 (striped) then mirrored across the 2 channels. There is no noticeable difference in speed but I feel better knowing that it's in RAID10. > There is no noticeable difference in speed but I feel better knowing > that it's in RAID10. You will feel even better when one of your disks fail while there is a production rush, knowing that it won't take forever to rebuild :-) Regards, lucm >>There is no noticeable difference in speed but I feel better knowing >>that it's in RAID10. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Regards, > lucm :-) Thanks much for your help. I would expect a 4 drive RAID 5 to have more space than a 4 drive RAID 10... Regards, Hank Arnold > If your controller does support it, a 4 disks RAID-10 array would be > good also. In which case all your databases and logs would be on the > same array, but they would benefit from a bigger disks span. disks span != space > I would expect a 4 drive RAID 5 to have more space than a 4 drive RAID 10... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > good also. In which case all your databases and logs would be on the > > same array, but they would benefit from a bigger disks span. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.