Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
malachi151
Posting Yak Master
152 Posts |
 Posted - 2012-02-28 : 12:46:57
|
| Of course everyone says to use RAID 10, but if, for cost reasons, you can't go with RAID, then what is the next best option for an OLTP system? Data on RAID 5 and logs on RAID 1? (But would that even be cheaper?)I'm assuming that for a data warehouse RAID 5 is just fine.--------------------------------------------------My blog: http://practicaltsql.net/Twitter: @RGPSoftware |
|
|
Bustaz Kool
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1834 Posts |
Posted - 2012-02-28 : 14:36:07
|
| The standard answer is that RAID 5 uses less disks than RAID 10 but has a performance impact when writing. It still allows for some level of hardware failure. RAID 1 works for the logs. Some suggest RAID 0 can be used for the TempDB files.What is your data size and what is your tolerance for system failure?=================================================Men shout to avoid listening to one another. -Miguel de Unamuno |
 |
|
|
malachi151
Posting Yak Master
152 Posts |
Posted - 2012-02-28 : 15:01:32
|
| Pretty much what I figured. But if you aren't going to go RAID 10, are you better off just going RAID 1 for an OLTP system?Our production system is mostly very bursty, a lot of batch processing of large data sets, which involve mostly, or maybe exclusively sequential inserts, little updating (some data is appended to records after insert). So the production system sits for maybe hours, then will have to insert maybe 100,000 or 500,000 records in a batch, with some reads as well, reading from joined tables and doing transformation in memory.Basically, like 100,000 records will be inserted, then updated, then read into memory in a Java app, transformed, then the results written out to a new set of tables.There is also some web service action that does single record processing as well, but a lot of batch. As for TempDB, does it need to be on a RAID drive at all, I mean RAID 0 is no redundancy, so, what would happen with TempDB on RAID 0 if one drive went down, and for that matter what about putting TempDB on a single SSD?--------------------------------------------------My blog: http://practicaltsql.net/Twitter: @RGPSoftware |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2012-02-28 : 15:37:15
|
quote:
As for TempDB, does it need to be on a RAID drive at all, I mean RAID 0 is no redundancy, so, what would happen with TempDB on RAID 0 if one drive went down, and for that matter what about putting TempDB on a single SSD?
You can put anything on a non-RAID drive as long as you're aware of what will happen if the drive fails. RAID 0 should NEVER be used for any SQL Server files of any kind. Not only does it have zero redundancy but it makes ALL of the drives unrecoverable if any of them fail. |
|
|
|
russell
Pyro-ma-ni-yak
5072 Posts |
Posted - 2012-02-28 : 16:28:05
|
| If you put tempdb on a non RAID and that disk fails, your server crashes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the best alternative to RAID 10?