June 30, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I have an existing datbase server and would like to upgrade to a new datbase server, but I have a question about disk configuration. The database has only the primary file group and a single MDF and LDF.
Here are the plans that I had thought about:
1) OS on Disk 0, MDF on Disk 1, LDF on Disk 2
2) OS on Disk 0, MDF and LDF on Raid 5 array
This is on a database that would be pretty balanced between read/write operations.
What do you think? Which plan would get better performance?
July 3, 2006 at 8:00 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
July 3, 2006 at 2:11 pm
How is performance on your current server? Good, bad, ugly? Given the 2 optiosn you list I'd suggest option 2, becasue it doesn't look like option one has any redundancy for a single disk failure. This should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt, but this is typically what I recommend.
OS, Raid 1
MDF Raid 1 or 1+0
LDF Raid 1
By mirroring your drives you get pretty decent throughput and if one of your disks goes down you can keep running.
-Luke.
July 4, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Always try to avoid Raid5 when dealing with databases. Raid 5 = slower writes.
July 6, 2006 at 7:31 am
Raid5 = slower writes - yes, but if you have a raid5 array the more drives you have will reduce latency and I\O contention. If you have a raid array with 16 drives I doubt that the writespeed would be an issue. On the other hand three drives in a raid5 array is very bad!!
July 10, 2006 at 8:27 am
raid 5 has a 25% write efficiency on equal available spindles vs raid 10. It also has poor rebuild efficiency, trying to rebuild a disk within a raid 5 array and keeping your server operational is tricky. a 16 disk raid 5 may sound good but 2 disk failures will still be fatal - more spindles in raid 5 = more chance of failure.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply