what if i were able to add 2 more 80 GB drives? would it then be advisable
to install the OS and configure RAID 1 on these drives and keep RAID10 for
the remaining 4 x 400GB drives?

tia-

JT

"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OH59e$V4GHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I agree with Hank in that having logical drive or partitions on the same
>physical drive doesn't buy you anything in terms of performance. And you
>now run the risk of running out of space on a given partition. If you keep
>the same drive config you would be better off to have one large partition
>and not worry about how large the files will get.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Hank Arnold" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:eqkaHJU4GHA.2464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>>
>