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 123»»»

Storage - A meeting of minds Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Sunday, July 15, 2012 3:24 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:15 AM
Points: 2,926, Visits: 1,881
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Storage - A meeting of minds

LinkedIn Profile
Newbie on www.simple-talk.com
Post #1329902
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 12:56 AM


SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:13 AM
Points: 496, Visits: 601
What an excellent article - thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. Some really well-researched material here!

---

Note to developers:
CAST(SUBSTRING(CAST(FLOOR(NULLIF(ISNULL(COALESCE(1,NULL),NULL),NULL)) AS CHAR(1)),1,1) AS INT) == 1
So why complicate your code AND MAKE MY JOB HARDER??!

Want to get the best help? Click here http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ (Jeff Moden)
My blog: http://uksqldba.blogspot.com
Visit http://www.DerekColley.co.uk to find out more about me.
Post #1329955
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 1:00 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:56 AM
Points: 6,748, Visits: 8,545
Great article, David.



Johan


Don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground won't get you anywhere

- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help


- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt ?


"press F1 for solution", "press shift+F1 for urgent solution"


Need a bit of Powershell? How about this

Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
Post #1329956
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 3:03 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:38 AM
Points: 1,403, Visits: 6,931
Great article, will reread it twice
Post #1329995
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 3:07 AM
SSChasing Mays

SSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing Mays

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:20 AM
Points: 634, Visits: 328
Great article. Thanks for sharing your research.
Post #1329998
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 3:47 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 7, 2014 9:49 AM
Points: 272, Visits: 739
Hi David,

Wonderful article.

Thanks



Post #1330006
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 3:54 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:57 AM
Points: 27, Visits: 377
Really good article Dave and something we've spoken about in depth a lot over the last few years.

Something worthwhile pointing out on the cost front, PCIe storage is the cheaper option compared to a SAN if doing a new build (where you have to factor in the SAN cost). I've just recently looked at the costs for a new SAN setup with 1.2TB as the basic requirement of storage capacity. On the SAN side I've gone for 4x600GB disks (RAID 10) and a dozen servers. I've looked at dedicated spindles per DB server as always (I would have preferred 300GB disks but it's the better balance for the example I was working on). The SAN is a Clarion VNX5.

For PCIe I went with the FusionIO ioDrive2 Mono MLC card as an OEM bit of kit shipped from Dell. The rest of the server spec is identical to the above. It's more than fast enough but there are much faster.

The cost of PCIe is well under half the SAN based costs and will deliver a lot more performance (I upped the RAM spec on both sides as I found the requirements as you mentioned from FusionIO and it's not that more expensive to allow at this stage).

On the lifespan front you can use the program / erase cycles to calculate the theoretical lifespan.

The lowest number you normally see quoted is 10,000 p/e cycles. Using that value we can calculate (simplified theoretical version) :

A 1.2TB drive = 1,318,554,959,872 bytes
1,318,554,959,872 bytes * 10,000 p/e cycles = 13,185,549,598,720,000 bytes that can be written

500GB written per day = 536,870,912,000 bytes (for me this is pretty close as TempDB takes a hammering in our estate)

1,318,554,959,872 bytes / 536,870,912,000 bytes = 24,560 days of writing at 500GB per day
24,560 = 67 years or 589,440 hours (admittedly lower than half of SATA or SAS, but when you up the capacity to 2.4TB with the same write rate it almost matches the usual MTBF rates on mechanical storage [my preferred way of describing SAN storage without being offensive]).

It's a bit of an unfair calculation if I'm honest as we are comparing the amount of times we can theoretically write to something vs a potential hardware failure rate with mechanical parts. However, since the end result is something being kaput it's probably not too wide of the mark. Adding more component parts increases the probability of failure so that is something else to consider with mechanical storage. If we add spindles for speed we increase the likelihood of something breaking.

Oh and once you see a 1TB database restore go from 4 hours to 5 minutes simply with none-mechanical storage it's very hard to get it out of your head.

Post #1330008
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 5:58 AM


SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:01 PM
Points: 76, Visits: 232
Missing, not for the first time in such essays, is discussion of normal forms, particularly for the operational data. If one moves to SSD, response time factor changes significantly, even compared to short-stroking. But doing so with the typical flat-file datastore is cost prohibitive. In order to get maximum user data back and forth with available IOPS, one needs a high NF datastore, which also happens to have the minimum footprint on storage.

Coders just love to refactor code, but they (all too often in control of database schemas) refuse to refactor data. Since their schemas start life as byte dumps manipulated by their wonderous code (just like their granddaddies' COBOL/VSAM apps), refactoring data means re-writing code; well, mostly discarding lots of code. The lifetime employment assurance disappears.

IOW, the problem isn't technical, but spiritual. Much the same thing happened when the 360 appeared with DASD. Rather than code to Direct Access, coders continued to do what was comfortable, code to Sequential Batch. Who said there's something new under the sun?
Post #1330050
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 7:29 AM


Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 8:46 PM
Points: 717, Visits: 3,038
You state:
In addition there are more sectors in the outside tracks than there are in the innter [sic] tracks.


My understanding of disk sectors has always been that the number of sectors per track is constant for a given disk, and that each sector stores the same amount of data as any other sector.

Because the sectors on the outer tracks cover a bigger surface area on the physical platter, the storage density for those outer tracks is correspondingly lower. The included angle subtended by any sector is the same, which allows the head to read the same amount of data per partial rotation, no matter where on the disk its reading from.

Anyone confirm this?

Rich
Post #1330099
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012 7:34 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 19, 2014 7:34 PM
Points: 356, Visits: 925
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 40 disks in a RAID 1 give you 1/2 the capacity you stated. It's a mirror, so your array size is still only 6 TB, not 12. This works out to about 5.5 TB of useable space. More to the point, aren't we really talking about RAID 0+1 here?
Post #1330104
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse