May 19, 2003 at 9:31 am
I've been having a debate with my infrastructure colleagues over the best RAID choice for SQL Server. I favour a large RAID5 array for data and a second physical RAID5 array for logs, TempDB and backups. If I am constrained on disks/cost I go for one RAID5 array for everything. Others prefer mirroring (RAID1) for the logs and backups, or for everything. Comments and views re budget/ performance/ resilience please?
May 19, 2003 at 10:33 am
Our standard is
RAID 1 (c:) - OS + SQL OS
RAID 1 (f:) - SQL Logs
RAID 5 (g:) - SQL Data + backups.
If tempdb is heavily used (not most servers), we add a RAID 5 for the tempdb mdf. Since we run the backups when the db is not heavily used, we haven't worried about having the backups and data together. We could put them with the logs, just tend to make that a smaller array and have a larger R5 array. We do have one large server where we have a separate RAID 5 for the backups because of size constraints.
Steve Jones
May 19, 2003 at 2:17 pm
would you be so kind as to post the number of channels / IO cards that you are using? We have a few Sql Server in the company some production some dev, but the IT dept always sets them up as only Raid 5, with the raid being partitioned to 2 drives, C: 5 gig for OS and Sql OS, and Drive D: with all the data/logs and temp db. Now we have a sql server who is being pegged on a normal basis with this set up and I've been pushing for getting more hardware to bump it up to
raid 1 = os/ sql OS
raid 1 + 0 = TEMP/Logs
Raid 5 = Data
thoughts or suggetions I can use in my argument all welcomed.. .thanks
-Francisco
-Francisco
May 20, 2003 at 3:01 am
Steve, thanks everso for your contribution. Could you please tell me whether you favour RAID1 for logs because a)it's faster than R5, b) it's less expensive or c) more resilient.
NB. My problem with R1 is that because I use the 'other' array for backups (safer to have the data and backups on sep arrays, don't you think?) I'm constrained to 72GB with R1 and I have some huge databases.
May 20, 2003 at 3:06 am
Hi Francisco. In my experience a sweating SQL Server benifits hugely from 'placing for performance'. Your proposal looks OK, if you can afford RAID0+1. That would always be my preference for everything as you get the best of both RAID options, the speed of 0 and the resilence of 1. Bit pricey tho'.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply