July 22, 2011 at 12:44 am
We have a new server configured as 1 Raid 10 and 1 Raid 5.
I am planning to use Raid 5 for the data and Raid 10 for the log.
Is this a good setup for the data and log or is it the other way around?
Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
July 22, 2011 at 2:48 am
to be honest raid 5 isn't very good for anything except read only databases. There is a big overhead on writes for a raid 5 or raid 6. There is just so much out there on this subject I'm surprised you're actually asking this.
essentially raid 5 gets capacity at the expense of performance, there's no right and wrong only what fits best to your requirements.
Personally I've never put a production sql server on raid 5 in 16 years.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 22, 2011 at 4:04 am
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I've read the comparisons and each and everyone has their own opinions which makes it the more confusing.
Since we are on a tight budget, this is the infrastructure that they could provide me so I have to make do of it.
I just wanted to know your recommendation on how I could maximise it as to putting the data on the raid10 or on the raid 5?
July 22, 2011 at 8:04 am
Since this is the set up you are stuck with, I would say put the log in RAID 10 and data in RAID 5. Basically because you have more writes in Log and probably more reads in Data file (Depends if it is OLTP or OLAP though).
Take a read regarding the comparison between RAID 5 and RAID 10 here.
Just my 2 cents
-Roy
July 24, 2011 at 7:47 pm
That's what my original plan as well to put the log in Raid 10.
Thanks.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply