First off, you've picked, IMNSHO, the worst of the options available to
you. The PERC 5i adapter has only one internal RAID channel. This means
that all data will be funneled through the one path, degrading
performance. By putting all the drives in the same RAID array and
*partitioning* it, you've added drive access delays to your performance hit.

If adding drives and separate RAID channels isn't a possibility, then
I'd almost rather see two RAID arrays:

RAID 1 (two drives) - OS, program files and log files
RAID 1 (two drives) - Databases

Regards,
Hank Arnold

JTL wrote:
> Thanks for the -
>
> I have an Integrated PERC 5/i RAID adapter on this machine. I setup my 4
> drives in a RAID 10 configuration with 3 virtual drives. The C drive (boot
> partition is 30GB), then I have a 200GB partition, and a 500GB partition. Im
> using the 30GB partiotion for the OS, the 200GB partition for the sql log
> files, and the 500GB partition for the sql data files. Are you saying that I
> should place the sql log files on the same partition as the OS? I'm afraid
> that if I do this, I will run out of disk space on that partition b/c it's
> only 30GB.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks much!
>
> JTL
>
> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:OdlpZXI4GHA.5092@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> First off, you make no mention of a RAID adapter. If you don't have one,
>> don't bother with RAID. Software RAID is, at best, a bad idea.....
>>
>> Next, if you do have (or get one), you do realize that all the data on any
>> drives being put in a RAID array will have their data completely wiped
>> out? Better have good backups before you try anything....
>>
>> With 4 drives, total, you don't have many options. RAID 1 requires a
>> minimum of 2 drives, RAID 5 requires 3 and RAID 10 requires 4. Either
>> everything on a RAID 10 or two RAID 1 arrays. OS, Log and programs files
>> on the boot drive and databases on the second.
>>
>> Ideally, you should have at least 3 RAID arrays. RAID 1 for the OS and
>> program files, RAID 1 for the log files and RAID 10 for the databases.
>>
>> If you choose multiple RAID arrays, it's important that they are on
>> separate channels. If they share a channel, you lose a lot of the gains in
>> performance by pushing everything through a single channel.....
>>
>> BTW, It's not a good idea to have Exchange and SQL on the same server.
>> Each wants everything for itself. At the very least it is going to require
>> a lot of careful tuning to get it to work efficiently....
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank Arnold
>>
>> JTL wrote:
>>> i posted a related question a few days ago and have since upgraded my
>>> hardware- im hoping to set up my server with the optimal RAID
>>> configuration for our limited means- we have a shiny-new dell poweredge
>>> 2950 server with four, 400GB SATA drives. it is running windows server
>>> 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 and SQL Server 2005 Enterprise x64.
>>>
>>> this server will be hosting a sql server database that has an 80GB data
>>> file which will slowly grow over time. data redundancy is important
>>> since this machine will be our main data server, however we do have means
>>> to rebuild our database if we were to lose it- our data is updated just
>>> once a day via a data import task. i would say that processing power is
>>> equally as important to us as data redundancy, if not more important.
>>>
>>> i am leaning toward a RAID 10 configuration, but being quite the newbie
>>> at this, i'd love to hear your recommendations.
>>>
>>> is it possible to use a combination of RAID levels? for example, i was
>>> playing with idea of configuring RAID 1 for two of the drives, which
>>> would store the OS and SQL log files. then configure RAID 0 for the
>>> remaining 2 drives, which would store the SQL data files. but would i
>>> need more hardware (like a RAID connector/controller??) to do this? and
>>> would this be better than just throwing all disks into a RAID10 array?
>>>
>>> anyways- any and all is much appreciated-
>>>
>>> thanks!
>>>
>>> JTL
>
>