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

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

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
>
>
>

RAID 10 will improve performance over RAID 5.

Hopefully, you will never see a multiple drive failure. Do you make sure
that all drives come from different manufacturing batches. (Think product
recall: due to some manufacturing 'glitch', all products in a sequence may
be defective.)

--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc

Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous

You can't someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf


"stosti" <stosti@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BEF8A47-A10F-417E-A375-FDBEBF36B4AB@microsoft.com...
> 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
>>
>>
>>

RAID5 requires more I/O due to having to do parity. It gets worse the more
disks you have.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"stosti" <stosti@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BEF8A47-A10F-417E-A375-FDBEBF36B4AB@microsoft.com...
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
>
>
>

If the number of drives is fixed, then I would put SQL and the log files
on the RAID 1 array. The databases on the second array. Make the second
a RAID 10. Put SLQ and the log files on the RAID 1 and the databases on
RAID 10 (significantly better performance).

Ideally, you should add a 3rd array (RAID 1) (on its own channel) and
put the log files on it. This will speed things up and improve your
ability to recover from a disaster.


Regards,
Hank Arnold

stosti wrote:
> 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

Tom Moreau wrote:
> RAID5 requires more I/O due to having to do parity. It gets worse the more
> disks you have.
>

I thought the more RAID5 HDs you have the faster the performance
becomes. I swear I read (or heard) it somewhere but can't remember where :-(

Check out:

http://groups.google.ca/group/micros...0933bc778feab9

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Ron" <fdskljfoiewiorewuokdvsfds@FI74as32etwIOtrFewDS.co m> wrote in message
news:%23QV38$E$GHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Tom Moreau wrote:
> RAID5 requires more I/O due to having to do parity. It gets worse the
> more
> disks you have.
>

I thought the more RAID5 HDs you have the faster the performance
becomes. I swear I read (or heard) it somewhere but can't remember where :-(