Hi,

What would this configuration do for performance? I'm not worried about a 2
disk failure. I have been in this business for over 10 years. I can count
all the disk failures on one hand. I have never seen two disks failure in
the same RAID.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> I'd change the RAID5 to RAID10. You'll have the same effective capacity -
> 600GB - and better performance. Also, if 2 drives fail in RAID 5, you're
> down. In RAID 10, there are several 2-disk failure scenarios in which you
> are still up. With a 4-disk RAID10, only 2 out of 6 2-disk failures will
> bring you down.
>
> --
> Tom
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
>
> "stosti" <stosti@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C1D19A45-BA4C-48CF-AFB5-5B63A7D3A680@microsoft.com...
> Hi.
>
> I'm building a new SQL 2000 server. I typically use HP DL380 machines with
> split backplane. SCSI controller one will have a pair of 72 GB drivesin
> RAID
> 1 (C. This will be used for the operating system. SCSI controller two
> will have 4 300 GB drives in a RAID 5. Three of the drives will make up the
> RAID 5 and the forth will be an online spair. SQL will be installed on the
> RAID 5 (D.
>
> Is this configuration ok? Is there a prefered way to set them up? This
> setup is fine for recovery but maybe not optimal for performance?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>