How about using 0+1 on the SQL Database. You get speed and redundancy at the price of space. Much faster then RAID5.
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony L. Sollars [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:40 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: SQL Server and RAID Levels I am building another production SQL Server for our services team, and have configured in my default configuration: 2 x 18gig SCSI on RAID 1 = OS & Pagefile 2 x 73gig SCSI on RAID 0 = Logs & tempDB 4 x 73gig SCSI on RAID 5 = SQL Database The problem is the SQL engineers are questioning the performance of RAID5 for their needs. We are using RAID 0 on the logs because this is transactional data that is not important, and we don't need redundancy here just sheer speed. But they are saying that RAID 0 should be used isntead of RAID5 on the 4 drive array. The bulk of the work on this RAID5 will be data manipulation, where they willl run sql scripts that compress and organize the tables in the database. In my opinion RAID 5 is good for this also. -TOny Thanks for any advice ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
