May 25, 2011 at 9:56 am
I'm planning a new data warehouse server using 2008R2 and would like some advice on raid setup. Which would you prefer?
2 large 7.2k rpm SATA raid1 for OS/programs/swapfile/local backup
2 SAS 15k rpm 300GB in raid1 for log file and tempdb
4 SAS 15k rpm 300GB in raid5 for mdf
OR
2 large 7.2k rpm SATA raid1 for OS/programs/swapfile/local backup
6 SAS 15k 300GB in raid10 for mdf, log file and tempdb
Inserts/Updates may occur every once in a while, but the transaction log will only really see use during nightly load. Tempdb will likely get heavy use due to grouping, ordering, etc. Basically, I'm wondering if it's better to have tempdb on a separate controller, or on a faster array of disks. If it helps to decide, I'm currently thinking of getting a Dell Poweredge R510 and will be using the PERC H200 or H700 controllers.
May 25, 2011 at 10:58 am
Is the below true? If so, that would support the 2nd config.
"data and tempdb should share LUNs because the IO pattern is a sequence of: read from data, then write to temp, repeated. So having separate data and tempdb disks means only one set is active at a given time." link
May 25, 2011 at 12:15 pm
You're question might have a typo but microsoft has always recommended that TempDB be separate from User databases due to its random IO nature. Transaction logs are sequential write IO and benefit from having an isolated path to the disks.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply