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

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
>
>

Does your question imply, that you do not have RAID controller? In that
case, RAID 1 and RAID 10 can be quite slow for reading. But with
controller, RAID 10 seems suitable solution for all files. Or as you
said, RAID 1 for log files. But I don't see any reason to put RAID 0 for
the database files, since most I/O goes to the log files, right? Two
separate disks or JBOD seems better.

--
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland

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
>
>

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

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
>
>

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
>>

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
>>>
>

It's really hard to say since you didn't provide enough info to say what you
actually need in terms of I/O. I am a little perplexed since you say you are
using Enterprise editions of both Windows and SQL Server which is not cheap.
Yet you skimp on the drives which are trivial in cost compared to the
software licenses. Chances are that if you need EE then you probably need
good I/O as well. You did say you only update once a night. If this is truly
a mostly read only app you can probably get by with log files on the same
drive array as the data or on a drive with the OS. The question is how much
I/O will you need to support your normal data access?

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"JTL" <jt@clickstreamtech.com> wrote in message
news:eWjxYBn4GHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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
>>>>
>>
>
>

Sounds like a much better idea. If you pursue that, I'd put the log
files on the RAID 1/Boot partition and the databases on the RAID 10.
Ideal, though, would be to add two more drives and have 3 RAID arrays:

RAID 1 - OS & applications
RAID 1 - log files
RAID 10 - databases

Also, to maximize throughput, it would be highly recommended that each
RAID array be connected to a separate channel. This will require adding
another RAID adapter with 2 internal channels.

Regards,
Hank Arnold

JTL wrote:
> 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
>
>