|
Dear all If we have a server with [8] hard disks,and If we made [2] hards RAID 1+0 (c:) install SQL on C: any Idea
(comments are locked)
|
|
It all depends on your I/O requirement. Best practice is to separate your data files and log files due to sequential vs random I/O, however if you are going to have multiple log files on the same drive then your sequential writes become more random. It all comes down to speed, size and protection that you are going for. I would personally go with a RAID 1 for C: and then RAID 6 for the secondary drive. SQL on C and Data and Logs on D. Again though, it depends on the work load, size of the data, etc. RAID 5 with two partitions provides no benefit other than two drive letters, it is the same number of spindles and does not provide any additional I/O benefit.
Nov 15 '12 at 11:10 AM
Tim
I thought you needed an even number minimum of 4 disks for RAID 1+0, being a combination of striping & mirroring... I could, of course, be mis-remembering.
Nov 15 '12 at 11:40 AM
ThomasRushton ♦
WIth the low storage requirement and with 700 GB 15k drives, you would be better off with RAID 1 with 4 drives. C, D, E and F. OS and SQL install on C, tempdb data on a drive, tlogs on a drive and data files on the other. Just make sure you have a spare 700 GB 15k on hand in the event of a failure, you don't want to lose a drive and have to wait a couple of days for vendor X to send you a replacement.
Nov 15 '12 at 11:53 AM
Tim
3 disk can not make up a RAID 10 (1+0) configuration. Check out this article
Nov 15 '12 at 11:57 AM
Tim
Awesome, it has been a lot of fun helping you on here. Have a great day. Also if I have answered your questions to help you out, please mark them as the answer in your post by checking the accept button next to your question. That helps me get more creditability on this site and lets others know you have been answered. You also build extra karma (points) as well. It is good for all.
Nov 15 '12 at 03:01 PM
Tim
(comments are locked)
|
