June 2, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Hello everyone,
I am trying to increase my understanding of drive and file configurations where SQL is concerned and could use some help. In an effort to save time I'll just give the situation and then my question.
The server I am working on was setup (not by me) with RAID 0+1 (NOT 1+0) with 3 logical drives defined, each having 20GB of space. I am in the process of setting up a DB on this server and would like to know if there would be 'any' benefits to creating multiple data files and placing those data files in different file groups on seperate drives. In my situation, I have to believe it won't really matter due to the small size and processing of the DB in question. However, I would still like to know the optimal settings for future implementations I may be part of.
Q1: With the RAID configuration I have described above, do you get the simultanious processing between the 3 logical drives as you would with (say) 3 SCSI drives all on their own controller?
Q2: I have read in various places that it is a good practice always create at least 1 additional data file (placing it in to its own file group) and then set that data file as the default for the DB. The reason mentioned was so that you just have the system level items in the primary data file but all new objects created for the DB are stored in the 2nd data file in the new file group. Is there any benefit to doing this? What do you gain if anything?
Q3: Am I correct that you want to keep all data files on fast read sources (such as a RAID 5 array) and keep logs on fast write sets (such as a mirror set)?
Q4: In my situation, where I have 3 logical drives that are made up from a RAID 0+1 set, should I still put data files on one drive and log files on another? Am I really gaining anything as apposed to putting everything all on one of the logical drives in the set?
As i'm sure you can tell, I am not very familiar with the workings of the various RAID levels, so hopefully my questions make sense.
Thank you all for your continued support and assistance,
Bob
June 4, 2007 at 9:22 am
test for you implementation. i'm also going to try to test using RAID5 for the db volume to see if there is any performance difference. seems like a lot of SAN vendors like using RAID5 instead of RAID1
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply