Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««56789»»»

RAID and Its impact on your SQL performance Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:37 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:09 AM
Points: 869, Visits: 2,399
tony.turner (5/2/2012)


Sounds suspiciously like your hosting company has been listening to their EMC salesperson. EMC apparently is strongly in favour of RAID 5 for SSD, thus the loss of a single disk in the array. The EMC claim is that RAID 5 on SSD has a minimal write latency effect. Not convinced from measurements in practice


My own tests of locally attached 6 drive (enterprise) SATA SSD's vs. 10 drive 15k FC SAN disks shows that the 6 disk local SATA RAID 5 is always faster; even for 8KB random writes the 6 SSD RAID 5 is near triple the performance of the 10 disk RAID 10, though for 64KB random writes it's only about a third better. For most other categories the SSD RAID 5 is very much faster, though I was limited to 4Gbps throughput on the SAN in my tests, which is an artificial throughput ceiling.

SQLIO, at least, also shows average and max latencies to be much better for the local SSD's than for the SAN.

Post #1294030
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:03 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:45 PM
Points: 5, Visits: 69
This is a nice article, but possibly a bit dated and not really considering higher-end enterprise-scale subsystems that are available and more common these days, where RAID is not only obsolete, but not even a configuration option on the subsystem. Higher end arrays are now 'wide-striping' (as one term) across the entire array and are managed by the subsystem HW/FW/SW itself. Configuration is limited more to logical units and volumes. So although the discussion is valid for a more traditional physical server, I beleive more consideration needs to be placed on newer generation virtual compute modules with high-end disk subsystems. Also when reaching multi-terabyte/pedabyte scales, spindle counts are not much of a factor really either, each spindle possibly (typically) being a terabyte drive in itself. These systems are tuned and configured so differently than, say a local disk array, that I feel it warrants mention.


I'm finding many of the articles I recieve from SSCC are not considering true enterprise and large scale systems, focusing more on simpler stand-alone systems and may be misleading to newer adminstrators who might be working in enterprise level environements.

I'd love to start seeing more write-ups targeting higher profile systems, as that is where the leading edge of technology lives and where the real sticky intracacies tart getting interesting.

The RAID topics are great above, dont get me wrong, but it's just reminiscent of a era past.

But that's just one humble adminstrators opinion of course... it's always good to see folks writing and sharing knowledge of any kind, so keep up the work !
Post #1294146
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:05 PM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:09 AM
Points: 869, Visits: 2,399
rbarbati (5/2/2012)
This is a nice article, but possibly a bit dated and not really considering higher-end enterprise-scale subsystems that are available and more common these days, where RAID is not only obsolete, but not even a configuration option on the subsystem. Higher end arrays are now 'wide-striping' (as one term) across the entire array and are managed by the subsystem HW/FW/SW itself. Configuration is limited more to logical units and volumes. So although the discussion is valid for a more traditional physical server, I beleive more consideration needs to be placed on newer generation virtual compute modules with high-end disk subsystems. Also when reaching multi-terabyte/pedabyte scales, spindle counts are not much of a factor really either, each spindle possibly (typically) being a terabyte drive in itself. These systems are tuned and configured so differently than, say a local disk array, that I feel it warrants mention.


I suspect one of us needs to study "wide striping" in greater depth. As far as I'm aware based on a cursory inspection of the literature, "wide striping" is commonly using the very normal, standard RAID levels this article and discussion references, but with more drives. I.e. instead of a minimum 2+1 RAID 5 array, or even a normal 4+1 or 5+1 RAID 5 array, it's implementing an N+1 array, where N is "large". It's got all the normal features of a RAID 5 with many disks in the set; it averages out performance, it's got the write penalty, and it is resilient to only 1 drive failure at a time. When you put multiple workloads on the array, you get all the same features: when both Workload A and Workload B run at the same time, they compete for resources (and if everyone runs really big, long operations the first day of the quarter, perhaps they all take a lot longer), but when only one workload is active, it gets all the performance.


Reference: http://www.storagerap.com/2010/03/calculating-the-output-of-wide-striping.html

Reference: http://gestaltit.com/all/tech/storage/chris/enterprise-computing-the-wide-striping-debate/

Post #1294186
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2012 2:52 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:06 AM
Points: 3, Visits: 107
GregoryAJackson (5/2/2012)
Hi
do you think it would be a big performance loss to store tempDB data and Logs on the same Raid?

in our BI(OLAP) enviroment , we use

1. RAID 10 for Data1 and Log2
2. RAID 10 for Data2 and Log1
3. RAID 10 for TempDB Data and Logs



You will benefit from seperating TempDB and Logs.

Budget is always an issue so you gotta pick your battles. But in a perfect World, Id absolutely seperate them.

GAJ


Hi

Just to be sure you get me right:
3rd RAID ist only for TempDB Logs.

This RAID is build of 10x 15k 600GB 3,5" Hdds.

Would you go with this config, or would you recommend to build 2 Raids out of the 10 available HDDs?
Post #1294410
Posted Friday, May 4, 2012 6:26 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 15, 2014 4:06 AM
Points: 1, Visits: 39
How can i check my disks RAID status? I mean , how can i become confirm that my disks are on RAID 10?
Post #1295167
Posted Friday, May 4, 2012 7:26 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:04 PM
Points: 110, Visits: 496
Typically the RAID Controller will have an administrative software application or control panel.
this is where you can see the RAID config settings and make modifications if necessary



GAJ


Gregory A Jackson MBA, CSM
Post #1295517
Posted Saturday, May 5, 2012 1:15 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:07 AM
Points: 6,357, Visits: 13,687
GregoryAJackson (5/4/2012)
Typically the RAID Controller will have an administrative software application or control panel.

Ultimately it's the BIOS on the RAID controller that handles the array(s), for vendor specific you may have a management interface without rebooting and entering the BIOS


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs"
Post #1295544
Posted Monday, May 7, 2012 10:07 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:04 AM
Points: 297, Visits: 354
what is the best way to get the production IOPs requirement , we have ETL that runs for an hour and trying to get new H/w , what is the best way to know the IOPs requirement with current production load, will disk transfer/s will suffice or any better way?


Post #1295979
Posted Monday, May 7, 2012 10:13 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:04 PM
Points: 110, Visits: 496
sqlquery-101401 (5/7/2012)
what is the best way to get the production IOPs requirement , we have ETL that runs for an hour and trying to get new H/w , what is the best way to know the IOPs requirement with current production load, will disk transfer/s will suffice or any better way?


that is what I used.
If your in a SAN\NAS environment there will be additional utilities that capture this info as well.



GAJ


Gregory A Jackson MBA, CSM
Post #1295983
Posted Monday, May 7, 2012 10:33 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:04 AM
Points: 297, Visits: 354
Thanks , Yes i have couple of servers on SAN , what other utilities you refer?


Post #1295988
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««56789»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse