July 28, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I would like to optimize tempdb in our servers by having dedicated drive for itself and looking for RAID 0 which can perform better but i understnad there wont be much security but i think as it is tempdb it shud not matter.
I would like to know what happens to the sql server if the disk fails, does it gets back properly after replacing the disks and restarting the box, does it automatically creates tempdb byitself on restarting?
July 28, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I suppose if the path and security where tempdb is configured is setup on the new drive, it should work.
What about RAID 1? it would be nice to have some redundancy at least...
July 28, 2010 at 10:59 pm
What if you have a transaction that is using the tempdb heavily and the disk fails? That is too much of a risk for me.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 29, 2010 at 7:05 am
I have something weired, i am kind of testing RAID 10 and RAID 5 by some insert queries, I am doing an insert into a permanent table on both RAID levels but htey seems to come up with same duration and when i do the same inserting into temp tables by changign tempdb locations onto different drives (RAID10 and RAID5), it came up with faster on RAID1o than RAID5, any clue whatrs happening here.
Generally I would consider RAID10 should be faster for inserts.
July 29, 2010 at 8:00 am
I guess it depends on how much data you are writing...you may not notice the difference if it's not huge, however RAID 5 should be sloooow (it always is for me).
Easiest thing to do is to run SQLIO- easy to configure and is great for disk benchmarking.
July 29, 2010 at 8:32 am
It depends on the number of disks in your arrays.
The difference between RAID5 and RAID10 for me is also negligible. The reason one goes with RAID10 is a higher level of protection (less likely to lose the array than with RAID5).
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm
From my experience, you really don't want to put tempdb on RAID5. I inherited a server setup like that and as soon as I moved the tempdb to RAID1 the performance problems dissapeared.
It will depend on the queries and load on tempdb of course.
July 30, 2010 at 8:29 am
David Sorauer (7/29/2010)
From my experience, you really don't want to put tempdb on RAID5. I inherited a server setup like that and as soon as I moved the tempdb to RAID1 the performance problems dissapeared.It will depend on the queries and load on tempdb of course.
The number of disks in the RAID array will also have an impact.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 30, 2010 at 10:14 am
I'd like to point out that RAID5 is falling out of favor with the industry. Turns out that the actual likelihood of multiple drive failures is far higher than what had been expected. I'd recommend RAID6 instead of 5 - you can survive 2 drive failures and, unlike RAID10, those two drives can be any two in the set.
Steve G.
July 30, 2010 at 11:45 am
I used exclusively RAID 1 for all my TempDB's, which I think is the best for performance without the single point of failure factor!
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply