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 |
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
 Posted - 2015-04-30 : 11:04:21
|
| I'm looking at a spec for a new server. Its a most SME business ...2 x 300GB 10K Disks for OS2 x 600GB 10K Disks for Data2 x 600GB 10K Disks for Logs2 x 2TB SATA Disks for backups etcThis is the full number of disks that will fit into the box, more will need an expansion cabinet.Am I OK with Mirroring for Data, or should I be spreading RAID over more spindles? Or doing the data storage somehow differently?I'm looking for a "modest" setup which ism nonetheless, well suited to a dedicated SQL Server.(It will be running SQL 2014) |
|
|
jackv
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2179 Posts |
Posted - 2015-05-01 : 01:49:29
|
| @Krister - What RAID levels are you adopting?Do you have an IO profile of the intended database usage? This will influence the type of diks purchased , for example, 10K v 15K, how many spindles etcWeigh up costs versus performance versus storage space required. Depending on this analysis , you may need to make some compromises .Jack Vamvas--------------------http://www.sqlserver-dba.com |
 |
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2015-05-01 : 03:39:09
|
Don't know about RAID level - that's my question really!We've got 15K drives on another server for Document Management system (based on Autonomy, but bespoke interface linking it to the records system), but thought 10K would be OK on SQL as the RAID controller will have 2GB cache.Scenario is:20-30 users, 5 records staff doing data entry. Data entry is from receipt of post etc. so takes "all morning" but requires reading/digesting incoming documents so is "modest".Remainder of users are doing time recording. That's modest too.Main usage apart from that is document management. Majority of users are searching for documents (using an interface through Outlook), and filing new emails / attachments / documents. This part is sluggish, but main because it is badly written IMO.Vendor says we don't have enough hardware, I say that I would prefer it was optimised first ... usual story. Current servers are close to end-of-life so we have decided to replace all servers, separate the document management onto its own server, ditto SQL, and a third server to host various virtual machines for Exchange / IIS etc. and then have the argument with supplier about why their application has only improved marginally. There again, maybe I'll be proved wrong ... never happened before though  There are half a dozen databases:Record keeping has a coupleDocument management has a coupleCRM has oneIf you want me to run some I/O metrics on existing system let me known pls. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAID level for Data Volume