I have to purchase a new server to run a small SQL database, I would say a
max of 15 people using it on a regular basis and 30 people updating the data
via synchronising remote databases. I can't see more than 3 people
synchronising concurrently. I did have a server ion mind for this job (see
earlier post), but this has been taken away.

I have a limited budget ands am looking at purchasing a Dell Poweredge 1950
which can take a maximum of 4 2.5" drives. Would you reccomend running raid
5 on three disks or should I go for raid 10 on four disks.

It's not a great deal of info to go on, but it's all I have at the moment.

Thanks

Nick

Why is the choices a 3 disk Raid 5 when you are doing a 4 disk Raid 10. You
can do a 4 disk Raid 5 as well. Without knowing anything else I would opt
for the Raid 10. It gives greater redundancy and should do fine on reads
and writes for a small system.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"Nick Nack" <NickNack@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A6F54132-E222-4922-939D-7DE97FD46B82@microsoft.com...
>I have to purchase a new server to run a small SQL database, I would say a
> max of 15 people using it on a regular basis and 30 people updating the
> data
> via synchronising remote databases. I can't see more than 3 people
> synchronising concurrently. I did have a server ion mind for this job
> (see
> earlier post), but this has been taken away.
>
> I have a limited budget ands am looking at purchasing a Dell Poweredge
> 1950
> which can take a maximum of 4 2.5" drives. Would you reccomend running
> raid
> 5 on three disks or should I go for raid 10 on four disks.
>
> It's not a great deal of info to go on, but it's all I have at the moment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks for the information, after much reading we have decided to go
for RAID 10 for the system. Would you reccomend havinf an Operating System
Partition, a partition for the database logs and a partition for the Data.
Or' should we just use one partition as it is all running on the same raid
volume?

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Why is the choices a 3 disk Raid 5 when you are doing a 4 disk Raid 10. You
> can do a 4 disk Raid 5 as well. Without knowing anything else I would opt
> for the Raid 10. It gives greater redundancy and should do fine on reads
> and writes for a small system.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick Nack" <NickNack@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A6F54132-E222-4922-939D-7DE97FD46B82@microsoft.com...
> >I have to purchase a new server to run a small SQL database, I would say a
> > max of 15 people using it on a regular basis and 30 people updating the
> > data
> > via synchronising remote databases. I can't see more than 3 people
> > synchronising concurrently. I did have a server ion mind for this job
> > (see
> > earlier post), but this has been taken away.
> >
> > I have a limited budget ands am looking at purchasing a Dell Poweredge
> > 1950
> > which can take a maximum of 4 2.5" drives. Would you reccomend running
> > raid
> > 5 on three disks or should I go for raid 10 on four disks.
> >
> > It's not a great deal of info to go on, but it's all I have at the moment.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Nick
>
>
>

I recommend a single partition. You can separate the files into folders for
a logical separation without running the risk you made any one partition too
small or too large. There is NO performance benefit to having multiple
partitions on a single physical array so why limit yourself to several
smaller partitions.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"Nick Nack" <NickNack@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:217FD552-AC42-44C0-9702-AED2B685A38E@microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Many thanks for the information, after much reading we have decided to go
> for RAID 10 for the system. Would you reccomend havinf an Operating
> System
> Partition, a partition for the database logs and a partition for the Data.
> Or' should we just use one partition as it is all running on the same raid
> volume?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>
>> Why is the choices a 3 disk Raid 5 when you are doing a 4 disk Raid 10.
>> You
>> can do a 4 disk Raid 5 as well. Without knowing anything else I would
>> opt
>> for the Raid 10. It gives greater redundancy and should do fine on reads
>> and writes for a small system.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick Nack" <NickNack@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A6F54132-E222-4922-939D-7DE97FD46B82@microsoft.com...
>> >I have to purchase a new server to run a small SQL database, I would say
>> >a
>> > max of 15 people using it on a regular basis and 30 people updating the
>> > data
>> > via synchronising remote databases. I can't see more than 3 people
>> > synchronising concurrently. I did have a server ion mind for this job
>> > (see
>> > earlier post), but this has been taken away.
>> >
>> > I have a limited budget ands am looking at purchasing a Dell Poweredge
>> > 1950
>> > which can take a maximum of 4 2.5" drives. Would you reccomend running
>> > raid
>> > 5 on three disks or should I go for raid 10 on four disks.
>> >
>> > It's not a great deal of info to go on, but it's all I have at the
>> > moment.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Nick
>>
>>
>>