January 13, 2006 at 2:25 pm
We're converting to SQL Server 2005 and running it on some new iron. We're curious if anyone sees any problems with this.
Basic specs:
Dell
2 Dual Core Xeon 2.8 Ghz (total of 4 cores)
8 Gig RAM
RAID 1 - 2, 300 GB 10k RPM Drives (300 usable) - OS, Swap File, Local Backups, On-Board PERC SCSI
RAID 5 - 3, 146 GB 15k RPM Drives (292 usable) - Data, Separate 128 Meg cache PERC SCSI card
Running SQL Server 2005 Standard 64-bit (2 Proc version) on Windows 2003 Standard x64
Mainly 2, 12 Gig databases; mostly transactional traffic and some reporting
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Specific Specs:
Dell PowerEdge 6800
2.66GHz/2x1MB Cache, Xeon 7020, 667MHz Front Side Bus for PowerEdge 6800
2.66GHz/2x1MB Cache, Xeon Dual Processor for PowerEdge 6850
8GB, DDR2, 400MHZ (8X1GB) Single Ranked DIMMs
No Keyboard Option
Video ready option w/o monitor
146GB,U320,SCSI,1IN 15K,PE68X0
Embedded RAID - PERC4 Embedded Integrated
1.44MB Floppy Drive
No Operating System, Microsoft
Mouse Option None
Intel Pro 1000MT Copper Gigabit Network Adapter
24X IDE CD-RW/DVD ROM Drive for PowerEdge Servers All OS
Tower Bezel for PE6800
1x10 Hot Plug SCSI Hard Drive Backplane
Electronic Documentation and OpenManage CD Kit, PE68X0
146GB,U320,SCSI,1IN 15K,PE68X0
Motherboard PERC4ei controllerBackplane RAID 5 Media Bay RAID 1 Split Backplane PowerEdge 6800
Tower Chassis Orientation for PE6800
2nd Power Supply, 120 Volts Dual, PE6800
Power Supply Deployment for 120-127 Volt AC Countries
146GB,U320,SCSI,1IN 15K,PE68X0
1X2 Media Bay,PE6800
300GB,U320,SCSI,1IN 10K Removable
300GB,U320,SCSI,1IN 10K Removable
January 13, 2006 at 2:38 pm
There are many, many posts througout SQL Server Central that touch on this topic. I would recommend adding more drives. I would add at least one more drive to your data array and use Raid 10 instead of 5. If at all possible, you should split your tranlogs from your main data array. You may also consider moving your tempDB onto it's own disks as well. It's better to ask for what you want up front and have to scale back based on budget. I would think that getting at least one additional drive for a Raid 10 array would be feasable. Search this site for hardware discussions and you may find more information on what others are doing.
January 13, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for your insight. We'll probably go with the RAID 10, but...
If you have RAID 10, can you add two more drives to increase capacity later without destroying the array and repopulating it?
Also, if we have RAID 10 for the data, and put the logs on the RAID 1 OS drive with the swap file, wouldn't it end up being slower, or does the RAID 10 write speed (writing the log data) not outpace the RAID 1 write speed much?
Would it make more sense to get more drives of a lower capacity to increase the spread of the data across the drives?
Thanks again for your thoughts.
January 13, 2006 at 3:14 pm
1. I have not had to increase capacity on a Raid 10 array. I hope someone else can answer this for you.
2. I would not put your tranlogs on your OS drive. I would either leave it on your data array, or set up another mirrored pair to hold them.
3. Here's some good info:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=5&messageid=240411
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply