February 9, 2011 at 7:59 am
Can you please tell me what you think of this?
Two Equallogic SAN arrays
1. RAID 10 - 15k SAS array
2. RAID 50 - 7.2k SATA array
Creating two volumes
1. RAID 10 using most/all of the 15k array
2. RAID 50 using most/all of the 7.2k array
Setting the file allocation size to 64k using GPT on Windows Server 2008 R2
* Since Windows Server 2008 R2 aligns the partitions automatically, changing the file allocation size should not "disrupt" the alignment, correct?
RAID 10 volume will contain SQL Server 2008 R2 data files, log files, and tempDB files
RAID 50 volume will contain SQL Server 2008 R2 old data files and contain backup files from a file-share
Thank you so much.
July 1, 2011 at 2:50 am
It all looks good ... but in EQl we now have automatic storage tiering. Just let the EQL decide what's the best place to put the data on.
July 1, 2011 at 5:28 am
Split into drives then you have separate LUN number for each drive to increase the performance
For In Raid 10
==========
Drive 1 : Data-Files
Drive 2 : Log - Files
Drive 3 : Temdb - Files
For Raid 50
========
Backup Drive
Old Files Drive
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
July 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
To answer some questions:
1. Win2008 will take care of the partition alignment (default = 1MB), so you're correct there. Nothing to mess with.
As for the GUID partitions, read the heck out of the EQL docs and be sure they support whatever size you may get to... 16TB is generally good, but I'm unfamiliar with EQL, and the only other way to find out is to grow a LUN past the supported size and watch it disappear. Bad things, man.
Eddie Wuerch
MCM: SQL
July 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Syed Jahanzaib Bin hassan (7/1/2011)
Split into drives then you have separate LUN number for each drive to increase the performanceFor In Raid 10
==========
Drive 1 : Data-Files
Drive 2 : Log - Files
Drive 3 : Temdb - Files
For Raid 50
========
Backup Drive
Old Files Drive
How does this improve/increase performance? Unless each LUN is presented off of different spindles from the array and dedicated fully to each LUN, it won't make any difference at all. Plus, depending on the SAN being used and how the spindles are actually carved up - you may not even be able to define specifically what drives are used for which LUN and could end up with shared LUNs across systems.
With that said, I would recommend separating out to at least 5 separate LUNs for management and maintenance purposes. Using separate LUNs for System Databases and error logs, data files, log files, tempdb and backups allows you to manage the space more efficiently and not have a run away process cause your system problems when tempdb fills that LUN.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
July 4, 2011 at 6:05 am
With that said, I would recommend separating out to at least 5 separate LUNs for management and maintenance purposes. Using separate LUNs for System Databases and error logs, data files, log files, tempdb and backups allows you to manage the space more efficiently and not have a run away process cause your system problems when tempdb fills that LUN.
More split on the same array will not improve the performance but management or maintenance purpose is valid for this
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
July 4, 2011 at 9:29 am
Syed Jahanzaib Bin hassan (7/4/2011)
More split on the same array will not improve the performance but management or maintenance purpose is valid for this
Okay - so you agree that your previous advice about doing this to improve performance was not correct? Or more importantly - not complete?
I was hoping to hear something about how your advice would help performance.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
July 4, 2011 at 9:47 am
depends on the SAN cache and its config. If it's large enough probably won't make any difference. More importantly check the HBA drivers and config and the LUN config as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
July 4, 2011 at 9:55 am
Perry, that is exactly the point I was trying to get to - it depends 😉
Each SAN does things differently - and it really does depend on how that particular SAN is configured and how the LUNs are carved out.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
July 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
Jeffrey Williams-493691 (7/4/2011)
Perry, that is exactly the point I was trying to get to - it depends 😉
i agree
Jeffrey Williams-493691 (7/4/2011)
and it really does depend on how that particular SAN is configured and how the LUNs are carved out.
even right down to the HBA drivers. Most times you have a server to SAN performance issue they'll tell you check the HBA drivers before doing anything.
On a well designed and configured SAN most of this is just for management purposes really. It's the cache that takes all the writes not the disks (well not immediately anyway). Hence why the SAN cache has power redundancy so even if there's a failure the cache data is still protected
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
July 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
Perry Whittle (7/4/2011)
Jeffrey Williams-493691 (7/4/2011)
and it really does depend on how that particular SAN is configured and how the LUNs are carved out.even right down to the HBA drivers. Most times you have a server to SAN performance issue they'll tell you check the HBA drivers before doing anything
Not just the drivers - but how the HBA's are configured.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
July 4, 2011 at 10:23 am
Jeffrey Williams-493691 (7/4/2011)
Perry Whittle (7/4/2011)
Jeffrey Williams-493691 (7/4/2011)
and it really does depend on how that particular SAN is configured and how the LUNs are carved out.even right down to the HBA drivers. Most times you have a server to SAN performance issue they'll tell you check the HBA drivers before doing anything
Not just the drivers - but how the HBA's are configured.
indeed, it's a minefield. It's easy to see how soooo many people get it so wrong 😉
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
July 4, 2011 at 10:31 am
Very easy to see how so many people get it wrong. As a DBA - I have found that having a good relationship with the SAN guys, and/or a good relationship with the SAN vendor is a great help in making sure this gets setup correctly.
In some cases, the SAN guys need help in understanding how SQL Server works - and in some cases, I need help in understanding how the SAN works. Once we both have a good enough understanding of both sides - it usually is fairly simple to make sure everything is setup correctly.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply