Please give opinions on different ways to setup disks for best performance under SQL

Please give opinions on different ways to setup disks for best performance under SQL

Post by Jason Penn » Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:00:00



I am looking for ideas to configure the hardware on a SQL 6.5 server
to get the most performance out of the disk subsystem.  Right now, it
is configured as follows:
a) (6) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives in a RAID 5 array
b) (2) * 1 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives software mirrored
The O/S and supporting programs are on the 1 GB drives.  Everything
else of SQL is on the RAID 5 array (Tables, TempDB, Trans. Logs) which
is configured to be one 20 GB logical drive.

To me, this seems like an inefficient way to do this.  Would it make
more sense to do the following?
1) (2) * 9 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
2) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
3) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
4) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
In this config, the O/S would be on 2).  The tables would be on 1).
TempDB would be on 3).  And trans. logs would be on 4).  Does any one
have any suggestions to this setup?  I am interested in feedback.  The
more the better, and the sooner the better.  Thanks for any help.

Jason Penner
BMW Monarch
Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada

 
 
 

Please give opinions on different ways to setup disks for best performance under SQL

Post by Stame » Sun, 30 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Mirroring is ALWAYS slower than RAID 5. Mirroring wastes money too. RAID
5 is a little slower than straight striping, on writes, but is as fast
as straight striping on reads. I just use Compaq's SMART array
controllers which have 2M of mirrored cache on them so I don't have to
worry about the difference in speed difference between reads and writes.

Chris Stamey


> I am looking for ideas to configure the hardware on a SQL 6.5 server
> to get the most performance out of the disk subsystem.  Right now, it
> is configured as follows:
> a) (6) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives in a RAID 5 array
> b) (2) * 1 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives software mirrored
> The O/S and supporting programs are on the 1 GB drives.  Everything
> else of SQL is on the RAID 5 array (Tables, TempDB, Trans. Logs) which
> is configured to be one 20 GB logical drive.

> To me, this seems like an inefficient way to do this.  Would it make
> more sense to do the following?
> 1) (2) * 9 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
> 2) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
> 3) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
> 4) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
> In this config, the O/S would be on 2).  The tables would be on 1).
> TempDB would be on 3).  And trans. logs would be on 4).  Does any one
> have any suggestions to this setup?  I am interested in feedback.  The
> more the better, and the sooner the better.  Thanks for any help.

> Jason Penner
> BMW Monarch
> Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada


--
------------------------
Network Engineer
Datatrace Information Services Company Inc.

http://www.farther.com/stamey
--------------------------------
Bradley's Bromide: "If computers get too powerful, we can organize them
into a
committee; that will do them in."

 
 
 

1. Please give opinions on how to setup disks for best performance uder SQL

I am looking for ideas to configure the hardware on a SQL 6.5 server
to get the most performance out of the disk subsystem.  Right now, it
is configured as follows:
a) (6) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives in a RAID 5 array
b) (2) * 1 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 drives software mirrored
The O/S and supporting programs are on the 1 GB drives.  Everything
else of SQL is on the RAID 5 array (Tables, TempDB, Trans. Logs) which
is configured to be one 20 GB logical drive.

To me, this seems like an inefficient way to do this.  Would it make
more sense to do the following?
1) (2) * 9 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
2) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
3) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
4) (2) * 4.3 GB Fast Wide SCSI 2 hardware mirrored
In this config, the O/S would be on 2).  The tables would be on 1).
TempDB would be on 3).  And trans. logs would be on 4).  Does any one
have any suggestions to this setup?  I am interested in feedback.  The
more the better, and the sooner the better.  Thanks for any help.

Jason Penner
BMW Monarch
Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada

2. Informix introductory books

3. Please Help me get most performance out of SQL (probably disk setup issue)

4. Reporting Tools

5. Different SQL Server's Approaching View in different ways

6. ADO Kicking my buns! Need help.

7. Different Ways to SUM and Performance

8. Where can i get MSQL S/W free

9. Current trends - please give me your opinion!

10. Please give me any opinion on web server2.x

11. Performance and SQL Structure - Please give tips !

12. Moving Indices to a different disk and various performance

13. Delphi and Oracle, good choice? Opinions please