Just for the record, RAID 10 is not RAID 0+1. On RAID 10, you mirror the drives and then stripe the mirrors. On RAID 0+1, you stripe the drives and mirror the stripes. I think this is correct, but I may have it reversed. These are both similar in cost and redundancy, but they are not the same.
Dennis Depp At 03:22 PM 2/4/2002 -0500, Ed Esgro wrote: >Yes I was referring to RAID 10, which is just RAID 0+1. Although, I honestly >do not believe that RAID 5 is faster then 0 or 1 because the writing only >hits one drive, the other drives mirror off of that write in the background, >(a good controller would do most of the work). RAID 5, must write partially >to each individual drive and then write parity to each individual drive. >Much more writing, hence less speed. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Szlucha, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:06 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]
