I would not have RAID0 involved in any portion of a production SQL server.
Here's a config I'd use: * 2ea x 18GB RAID1 OS / Apps * 4ea x 73GB RAID5 Databases * 2ea x 18GB RAID1 Transaction Logs * 2ea x 36GB RAID1 TempDB / Database Dumps If performance is really important, go with RAID0+1/RAID10 See the following: http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=ServerSpecs.TXT What size of databases do you need and how much storage for dumps? ============================================================== ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=~MoreInfo.TXT ============================================================== Automation Leads To Relaxation... -----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]
