GilaMonster (1/11/2012)
Best is 10 everywhere. If that's too expensive, then 1 or 10 for log and 5 for data (and 10 for TempDB)RAID 5 is terrible for logs because it has a high write overhead. Tran logs are write-heavy, not read-heavy.
I had thought that RAID 5 had better write performance than RAID 0? Although I have been reading comments in both directions.
RAID 0 for TempDB is a risk, if any drive fails then TempDB fails and SQL shuts down. Now sure, there's no important data in there, but TempDB is essential for SQL operation and if it's on RAID 0 and a drive fails, SQL can't be started until either that failed drive is replaced (which could be anything from minutes to weeks) or until someone figures out how to start SQL without TempDB and relocates TempDB to some other drive.
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.
Kenneth FisherI was once offered a wizards hat but it got in the way of my dunce cap.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/[/url]For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/[/url]Link to my Blog Post --> www.SQLStudies.com[/url]