August 17, 2011 at 2:35 am
Hello
I'm due to set up a new installation of SQL Server 2008 Standard running on Windows Server 2008 64bit. I was wondering whether could you be so kind to give comments and suggestions?
Its going to be installed upon a blade system with an adjoining SAN. There are two blades which will be configured as an Active-Passive cluster. There are two hard drives in each of the blade servers, these will be mirrored.
The SAN will have 12 x 300gb disks, and will take one of these for its own spare. (Sorry my SAN knowledge is rather basic). Leaving 11 disks to be assigned to SQL Server. I was planning to have 2 mirrored for the logs, 1 for the tempDB and originally the remaining 8 for data in Raid 5 or 6.
The database itself is only about 150gb in size, personally I don't expect this to increase beyond 600gb during the life of the server. About 200 users use the server, some firing lots of small transactions, some firing the occasion massive reporting type query (we will be moving to BI, but not for 6-12 months).
I know Raid 6 has better redundancy than Raid 5, but at the expensive of write speed. Does anyone know in the real world what difference this is likely to make? Or should we opt for something like Raid 10, I think we will have enough disk space.
It is worth investigating any of the more exotic raid set ups?
Thanks in advance for any advice, comments or suggestions.
Jay
August 17, 2011 at 6:29 am
It is always worthwhile to take a look at how SAN should be set up for SQL Server. Take a look at Brents blog[/url] here regarding SAN Set up. It will give you a basic idea. IO bottleneck can be very messy. Here we dont have SAN but we have everything configured RAID 10. I would recommend RAID 10 over RAID 5. Keep in mind that Log files have sequential writes and data files have random writes.
Just my 2 cents
-Roy
August 18, 2011 at 1:40 am
Thanks for the link. Its most insightful.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply