I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
We would like to stay with raid 5.
Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
fresh install?
SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
Thanks for any help.
Don GrahamWhy do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your dbs
will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am looking for some advice on installing SQL 2005 x64 Standard on a
> new Windows 2003 x64 Standard Dell 2950 Box. We have a Quad 2.6 GHz
> with 16 GBs Memory, 5x 73 GB 15k RPM Hard drives.
> A couple things we are looking into is the best way to partition the
> Raid 5, what we have come up with so far is to create an OS partition,
> Backup Partition, Temp DB partition, and Everything else Partition.
> We would like to stay with raid 5.
> Next is there any to make Windows 2003 STD work better for SQL on a
> fresh install?
> SQL tips, We have read up on a few such as dedicating processor to the
> Temp DB. We use our DB for an in-house sales package (software
> designer included), Great Plains, and a CRM program.
> Thanks for any help.
> Don Graham
>|||On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why do you want to partition the drives? That does absolutely nothing for
> performance since they are all on the same physical array. By partitioning
> the array you now run into a situation where one or more of the partitions
> may be too small down the road. And why do you want to stay with Raid 5?
> Is 5 disks the max you can have in the box? I don't know who large your db
s
> will be or how you will use them but if performance is a goal placing
> everything on a single Raid 5 may not be the best option in the long run.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184020787.195967.302410@.e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
consideration here.|||Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if your
programmer swears by them who am I to say
.Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:59 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> The database size will total around 20-25GB (for now, they grow at a
> rate of 7 GBs a year), as for Raid 5 we were going to go with Raid 10
> but we went with the 15k drives instead. Our programmer/dbo swears by
> Raid 5. We can have up to 8 drives in the box but cost was a
> consideration here.
>|||On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well without knowing more about how you will actually use this server I
> can't say whether you will have issues with the Raid 5 or not. But if you
r
> programmer swears by them who am I to say
.> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184022630.326849.120520@.j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
expensive.
Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
operations for the program are done with stored procedures.|||You have plenty of cache so hopefully you won't need to do as much I/O on
the data drives. So if you separate the Tran logs fromt he data files you
will have a good start. By the way if price is an issue I would look at
placing the Log files on the same Raid 1 as the OS. As long as you don't
have other apps using the OS drive there isn't much activity and most small
to medium size apps do fine with sharing the logs and OS. That will give you
more drives for the data array.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
files.
To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
applications require much use of TempDB.
But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
then I would go for RAID 10.
Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx[
/url]
Rasmus Glibstrup
MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
"Donnie3iii" <donnie3iii@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
> "But if your programmer swears by them who am I to say"
> That was my thought as well but the more I look into it the more I
> start to disagree. I may go for a raid 1 (OS), Raid 1 (Trans log or
> TempDB), and I am not sure for the DB drive. Raid 10 is a little to
> expensive.
> Overall we have about 25-30 users, it looks like a lot of database
> operations for the program are done with stored procedures.
>|||On Jul 11, 5:38 am, "Rasmus Glibstrup" <ras...@.it-
craft.THIS.REMOVE.dk> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would go fo a tripple RAID 1, one for OS, one for Log and One for DB
> files.
> To begin with I would place the TempDB as any other database, unless your
> applications require much use of TempDB.
> But generally my experience is never to use RAID 5 unless you have a very
> large percentage of reads as opposed to writes on your database. And even
> then I would go for RAID 10.
> Maybe you want to take a look at point 2,3 and 5 in this from MS:http://www.micr
osoft.com/te...tice/storage...
> --
> Rasmus Glibstrup
> MCDBA,MCITP (dba,dev,bi)
> "Donnie3iii" <donnie3...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081530.969779.121120@.i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you all for the suggestions, I am planning on reconfiguring the
raid and going with either 2 or 3 depending on how much money I can
squeeze out. Thanks!
Don
No comments:
Post a Comment