October 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Dird (10/24/2016)
TheSQLGuru (10/6/2016)
I also note that 32GB on a server is just silly these days??
He means that it's an insufficient amount of ram. They've got USB memory sticks larger than that now. Of course, "It Depends" but ram is relatively cheap now and you should probably go for the max amount of ram your machine can handle.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 25, 2016 at 10:10 am
I appreciate the opinion, but the machine has mostly been built to a spec my company uses, and proves quite sufficient for the workload we have on it. I had input in changing the RAID to RAID 10. RAID 5 proved to be the bottleneck, so we created a RAID 10 array, and now the machine is performing much better, as the ETL in question was quite write intensive.
October 25, 2016 at 10:29 am
lensmithjr (10/25/2016)
I appreciate the opinion, but the machine has mostly been built to a spec my company uses, and proves quite sufficient for the workload we have on it. I had input in changing the RAID to RAID 10. RAID 5 proved to be the bottleneck, so we created a RAID 10 array, and now the machine is performing much better, as the ETL in question was quite write intensive.
RAID5 for write intensive databases is a killer... Even RAID1 is better... apart from having to replace the disks right after they fail... There's no 3rd parity disk in RAID1 🙂
RAID10 is the best and it has the disks/space ratio RAID1 has... 4 disks = 2 disks in RAID10 and 2 disks = 1 disk in RAID1 (2:1 ratio on both)..
October 25, 2016 at 12:14 pm
So I found out the not too hard way. I am recommending that DB servers are set up as RAID 10 from now on. Our sysadmin hadn't seen such a write intensive deployment, so not much experience with how to configure. Now we know!
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply