Most costly meaning you need to purchase twice the amount of drives. RAID 0 - Cost = Price of Drive RAID 1 - Cost = Price of Drive x 2 RAID 5 - Cost = Price of Drive x (n+1) RAID 0+1 - Cost = [Price of Drive x (n+1)] x 2
I should have clarified that I meant actual monetary cost. My bad. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:21 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: SQL Server and RAID Levels not exactly: RAID 5 is the most costly on writes as it requires 4 physical i/o per disk per write (remember parity is distributed across all drives). RAID 1 requires 2 physical i/o per disk, per write. RAID 0 requires 1 physical i/o per disk per write. RAID 10 (0+1) requires 2 physical i/o per disk, per write. byron -----Original Message----- From: Szlucha, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:06 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: SQL Server and RAID Levels Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Ed wasn't saying to use both RAID 0 and RAID 1, but rather what is sometimes called RAID 10, or more properly RAID 0+1. It is a mirrored RAID setup. Speed and redundancy, but it's the most costly of the bunch. And your statement about it being faster on RAID 0 or 1 is incorrect. RAID 5 is faster, as the write job is split up across the drives and each drive writes it's own piece of data at the same time as the others. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Paul Timmerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:00 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: SQL Server and RAID Levels It would all depend on the importance and size of the data. If there is going to be a large amount of data I would stick with thye RAID 5 for overall redundancy. In this case, I would recommend using 15K rpm drives if that is monetarily feasable. Yes, writing is a lot faster on RAID 0 or 1, but does this meet your redundancy needs? I would be very wary of placing the logs on a RAID 0 drive. That is NO redundancy. Again, depending on the importance of the data data, it might be okay. However, remeber that RAID 0 means that if that drive goes, so goes the transaction log and your ability to do a point in time recovery. >From: Ed Esgro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "NT 2000 Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "NT 2000 Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: SQL Server and RAID Levels >Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:46:54 -0500 > >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] _________________________________________________________________ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------ 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] ------ 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]
