| Author |
Topic |
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-07-31 : 04:03:02
|
| New big server x440 is coming with 14 2Gbps FC 73.4GB 15K Hot Swap HDD on IBM Total Storage Fast Exp700 exp.Unit.This server is for SQL Server and file system only.The idea is to have 6 HDD per Expansion unit on Raid 1 level with 2 hot spare.I need advise on making arrays.My idea was to have only one array and make partitions on it at the OS level.Is this safe or are there other configurations more correct that you can suggest like maybe one array for SQL Server and another array for file system,log and backups?.Just a little confused on this topic.Thank you in advance.Best regards.FrancoFranco |
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-07-31 : 14:43:01
|
| WHAT A MONSTERI would think independent physical are better than logicalMy best guess...Gotta be some stuff you can googleBrett8-)SELECT POST=NewId() |
 |
|
|
SamC
White Water Yakist
3467 Posts |
Posted - 2003-07-31 : 14:54:17
|
| I agree with Brett ... Monster ... !!!Separate physical drive for the DB. Perhaps Log files and OS on remaining physical media.Where's Tara ?Sam |
|
|
|
Page47
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2878 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-01 : 07:55:41
|
| What is your expected read:write ratio? How big is(are) your database(s)?RAID 1 fine good for OS. RAID 1 is ok for logs as that is primarily sequential writes. If you have many transactions/sec, you may want to stripe and mirror. RAID 5 is OK for data files if you are mostly Reads, but if you are more than 1/4 writes, look to a RAID 1, RAID 1+0 or RAID 10, depending on your performance needs.I would avoid the one big partitioned array as you will have disk contention between OS activity, log writing, and SQL Data retrieval.Jay White{0} |
|
|
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-04 : 02:25:12
|
| Thank you for your reply.I agree...it's quite a monster...but you know, I have to have control on it and manage this little monster.So my concern is only about security at the Raid level.This is why I would like to set up only one big array.I need your advise on this topic.Which is the most secure design in a RAID 1 CONFIGURATION?Cheers.Franco |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-04 : 18:44:57
|
| Security is not really an issue, at least no more of an issue than it would be for an individual hard drive(s). It really doesn't matter how you configure the array as far as security goes. However, you really do not want to have separate logical partitions on the same array, it will sacrifice a lot of performance for zero benefit. |
|
|
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-05 : 05:58:27
|
| Ok, I think about it and come up with this design because I was considering the work load!DB size woul be approx. 100GB and I need space for file system.So my design would be like this:1 Array for SQL Server database 4 x 73.4 GB = 293.6 GB in RAID 1 146.8 GB1 Array for SQL Server logs and Backups 2 x 73.4 GB = 146.8 GB in RAID 1 73.4 GB1 Array for File System 6 x 73.4 GB = 440.4 GB in RAID 1 220.2 GBAny suggestion about it?BTW...I love monsters like this one!Cheers.Franco |
|
|
|
Wanderer
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1168 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-05 : 06:53:56
|
| Hey Franco,You say you have 14 drives (73.4 GB drives)Are you allocating 2 for OS C: in raid 1 ?I ask because you list 4 drives for SQL databases (I'll arbitrarilt call this d:\); 2 drives for log's and backups (let's call it e:\); 6 for file system. So you've only used 12 drives of the 14.Wouldn't it be better, if possible, to try and keep log's and backups on different drives, or do you (and others) feel that since they are both largely sequential writes, and that backups happen infrequently enough, that it won't impact the performance of the logging ? I always thought that you wanted log's on fastest media available, and hence would want them on a an isolated drive.What about tempdb on an isolated drive ? I don't know if you have enough drives to cater for that, but where would you rate that in order of importance ? secondary to an isolated log drive ?Out if interest - what cpus have you got in there, and how many? What RAM ?CiaO*#&#* *#&#* *#&#* *#&#* Chaos, Disorder and Panic ... my work is done here! |
|
|
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-05 : 08:19:13
|
| Sure...something is missing here:4 CPU Intel Xeon 2.0 GHZFront size BUS 400 Mhz2048 KB L2 cache4 GB PC133 Dimm RAM.So, I have 14 drives and I would like to use 2 of this as Hot Spare, 1 for each battery of disks on the IBM Total Storage FASt T700 Storage Server with Dual Active RAID Controller-2GB Cache - Battery Backed.The idea in fact was to have 6 disks x 2 in RAID 1 + 2 Hot Spare.For the operating system we use the 2 x 36.4 GB 15K U160 SCSI Hot Swap internal, managed with IBM ServeRaid 4Mx U160 SCSI.About transaction logs:I cannot affoard to use 73.4 X 2 (raid 1) only for logs because they will not grow so much.I think something like 50-100 MB maximum.That is why I want to use this drive also for SQL Server backups.Same thing is for tempdb but I plan to shutdown SQL Server frequently, so tempdb will be recreated each time.Work time for users is 7.00 AM until 5.00 PM...I have time to manage the monster.To answer to your question, yes, if I could choose, I would prefer to have log isolated on a dedicated drive instead of tempdb.Cheers....ciao ciaoFranco |
|
|
|
|
Critical decision - How many arrays?