Advice on RAID

We sell a software package that runs on dedicated servers at sites that
typically have no db administrator. SQL Server 2000 is the database, and th
e
application is very write intensive – data for 50 to 200 parameters is
written to the database every minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Typica
l
database size is about 4 or 5 GB. Usually there are a few client
workstations. The application is also read intensive. We have configured
the systems with 3 drives such that tempdb is on C, database files are on D
and the log is on E. Because of frequent disk failures and the relatively
high expense of correcting those failures, we want to switch to RAID. Havin
g
little experience, we are looking for advice. RAID 10 is probably not an
option because of the expense. I would highly appreciate any suggestions.Rethink your aversion to RAID10. It performs better than RAID5 on
write-intensive installations and there is more high-availability associated
with it. Calculate how much revenue your business will lose in one day.
It's likely more than a handful of disks.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"KMP" <KMP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87394BC3-4BD5-4D70-A0B4-C4D4C2DCC7AA@.microsoft.com...
We sell a software package that runs on dedicated servers at sites that
typically have no db administrator. SQL Server 2000 is the database, and
the
application is very write intensive – data for 50 to 200 parameters is
written to the database every minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Typical
database size is about 4 or 5 GB. Usually there are a few client
workstations. The application is also read intensive. We have configured
the systems with 3 drives such that tempdb is on C, database files are on D
and the log is on E. Because of frequent disk failures and the relatively
high expense of correcting those failures, we want to switch to RAID.
Having
little experience, we are looking for advice. RAID 10 is probably not an
option because of the expense. I would highly appreciate any suggestions.|||With such small amounts of data you might as well go with RAID 1
(mirroring), with three pairs of drives. RAID 10 has advantages but
with just 4 to 5 GB of data it would be difficult justifying enough
drives to make a good RAID 10 set. For a write intensive application
you should avoid RAID 5 altogether.
One question I have to ask. You say you have "frequent disk
failures". What kind of drives are you using? (For server
applications I expect SCSI.) What brand are they?
Good luck!
Roy
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:11:27 -0800, KMP
<KMP@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We sell a software package that runs on dedicated servers at sites that
>typically have no db administrator. SQL Server 2000 is the database, and t
he
>application is very write intensive data for 50 to 200 parameters is
>written to the database every minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Typic
al
>database size is about 4 or 5 GB. Usually there are a few client
>workstations. The application is also read intensive. We have configured
>the systems with 3 drives such that tempdb is on C, database files are on D
>and the log is on E. Because of frequent disk failures and the relatively
>high expense of correcting those failures, we want to switch to RAID. Havi
ng
>little experience, we are looking for advice. RAID 10 is probably not an
>option because of the expense. I would highly appreciate any suggestions.