May 30, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Hello,
Can someone explain why RAID 0 is not recommended for OS volume in the context of SQL Server. I found this recommnendation when I was reading SQL Server 2000 Administrator's Companion, regarding capacity planning. But I didn't understand why it's not a good way to setup the server.
Thank you,
-R
May 30, 2006 at 2:03 pm
RAID 0 has no redundancy component. If you loose a disk on your production server, your application goes down.
May 30, 2006 at 2:07 pm
But if you have your data and log on RAID 5, then there shouldn't be any issues ?
May 30, 2006 at 2:14 pm
If your data is on RAID 5 and you lose a data disk, you will be OK. If you lose an OS disk with RAID 0, your application will go down. Your data will be OK, but it will be inaccessable because SQL Server cannot run without an operating system! The only acception would be if you are running in a clustered environment where in the event server A loses it's OS, server B takes over.
May 30, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Hi John,
It makes sense now. We are in the process of setting up database redundancy through replication and we have two servers for hardware failure.
But out of curiosity, in case if the server goes down (but able to get log and data files), it would be possible to construct user/system databases?
May 30, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply