RAID 1 vs RAID 10

Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a SAN)? We
are wondering what to use for the log files.RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
are also using the SAN.
"Shiva" <arbitsquare@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a SAN)?
> We are wondering what to use for the log files.
>|||> The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
> what other systems are also using the SAN.
SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance with
SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
disks presented from SAN.
Linchi
"Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
> RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
> should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
> are also using the SAN.
> "Shiva" <arbitsquare@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a SAN)?
> > We are wondering what to use for the log files.
> >
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--000104000206050106050406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Additionally, RAID 10 is typically only faster than RAID 1 in terms of
read performance. For writes, which transactions logs consist of nearly
100%, both are pretty close in performance. Also, since transaction
logs are sequential and the heads usually stay over the same spot on the
platters, you don't get the random I/O benefit that RAID 10 normally
gives with the striping. So a RAID 10 volume would, under most
circumstances, be no better than a RAID 1 volume for logs.
Kalen Delaney wrote a good section on RAID volumes in Inside SQL Server
2000 - worth a read. Also you can get some good ideas about disk
configuration from reading the data & log layout sections in the TCP-C
benchmark full disclosure reports on www.tcp.org (section 4.2
"Distribution of Tables and Logs" in the IBM full disclosure reports or
section 4.1 "Database Layout" in the HP full disclosure reports).
Microsoft used to use RAID1 for logs from memory but I noticed the most
recent one they had (SQL 2005 1.2M benchmark) used RAID1+0 physical and
then NT striping across those logical RAID volumes. The DB2 3.2M
benchmark and the Oracle's 1.6M benchmark both used RAID5+0 as far as I
can tell (DB2 - stripes across 10 separate RAID5 volumes, each volume
consisting of 14 spindles; Oracle - stripes across 8 RAID5 volumes, each
volume consisting of 12 spindles). So all the top benchmarks tend to
use striping of some sorts, which is interesting since for write
performance it shouldn't be any faster really than straight mirroring.
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Linchi Shea wrote:
>>The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
>>what other systems are also using the SAN.
>>
>SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
>what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance with
>SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
>Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
>disks presented from SAN.
>Linchi
>"Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
>
>>RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
>>should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
>>are also using the SAN.
>>"Shiva" <arbitsquare@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a SAN)?
>>We are wondering what to use for the log files.
>>
>>
>>
--000104000206050106050406
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Additionally, RAID 10 is typically only faster than RAID 1 in terms
of read performance. For writes, which transactions logs consist of
nearly 100%, both are pretty close in performance. Also, since
transaction logs are sequential and the heads usually stay over the
same spot on the platters, you don't get the random I/O benefit that
RAID 10 normally gives with the striping. So a RAID 10 volume would,
under most circumstances, be no better than a RAID 1 volume for logs.<br>
<br>
Kalen Delaney wrote a good section on RAID volumes in Inside SQL Server
2000 - worth a read. Also you can get some good ideas about disk
configuration from reading the data & log layout sections in the
TCP-C benchmark full disclosure reports on <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=www.tcp.org</a>">http://www.tcp.org">www.tcp.org</a> (section 4.2
"Distribution of Tables and Logs" in the IBM full disclosure reports or
section 4.1 "Database Layout" in the HP full disclosure reports).Â
Microsoft used to use RAID1 for logs from memory but I noticed the most
recent one they had (SQL 2005 1.2M benchmark) used RAID1+0 physical and
then NT striping across those logical RAID volumes. The DB2 3.2M
benchmark and the </tt><tt>Oracle's 1.6M benchmark both </tt><tt>used
RAID5+0 as far as I can tell (DB2 - stripes across 10 separate RAID5
volumes, each volume consisting of 14 spindles; Oracle - stripes across
8 RAID5 volumes, each volume consisting of 12 spindles). So all the
top benchmarks tend to use striping of some sorts, which is interesting
since for write performance it shouldn't be any faster really than
straight mirroring.<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Linchi Shea wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid3EAE716E-B80B-41E8-86BD-53C672D67935@.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
what other systems are also using the SAN.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance with
SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
disks presented from SAN.
Linchi
"Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
are also using the SAN.
"Shiva" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:arbitsquare@.hotmail.com"><arbitsquare@.hotmail.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl">news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a SAN)?
We are wondering what to use for the log files.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--000104000206050106050406--|||"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3EAE716E-B80B-41E8-86BD-53C672D67935@.microsoft.com...
>> The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
>> what other systems are also using the SAN.
> SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
> what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance
> with
> SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
> Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
> disks presented from SAN.
> Linchi
I'd be interested to see when that would be the case. If both cases have
the same disk configuration, but your local raid controller has, say, 128mb
of cache, but the SAN has a 2gb cache, wouldn't the SAN conceivable
outperform local disk?
Of course I can see if local disks or the SAN can provide more physical
disks than the other, then that would make a difference.
> "Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
>> RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
>> should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
>> are also using the SAN.
>> "Shiva" <arbitsquare@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a
>> > SAN)?
>> > We are wondering what to use for the log files.
>> >
>>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--050308030100090101020702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The most likely factor that would influence SAN disk performance would
be load applied by other hosts (mostly on the disks themselves, but also
the SAN cache & controllers). With the local disks they're always 100%
dedicated to the SQL host, but often (not always but often) the RAID
group on the SAN that you get your LUNs for SQL from will also be used
by other systems like email, other SQL hosts, file servers, VMs, etc.
Also, depending on how the cache on the SAN is configured it may not be
very useful for what SQL will use the LUN for (so that 2GB cache may be
useless). For example, if the cache is configured mostly for read, then
that's not going to help transaction log LUNs, which are almost
exclusively write only.
Most of the time I would think SAN LUNs ought to give better
performance, all things being equal, but I can see cases (and have
experienced them myself - sharing with Exchange can be a dog) where
local DAS disks can yield better performance.
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Michael D'Angelo wrote:
>"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:3EAE716E-B80B-41E8-86BD-53C672D67935@.microsoft.com...
>
>>The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
>>what other systems are also using the SAN.
>>
>>SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
>>what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance
>>with
>>SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
>>Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
>>disks presented from SAN.
>>Linchi
>>
>I'd be interested to see when that would be the case. If both cases have
>the same disk configuration, but your local raid controller has, say, 128mb
>of cache, but the SAN has a 2gb cache, wouldn't the SAN conceivable
>outperform local disk?
>Of course I can see if local disks or the SAN can provide more physical
>disks than the other, then that would make a difference.
>
>>"Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
>>
>>RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
>>should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
>>are also using the SAN.
>>"Shiva" <arbitsquare@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a
>>SAN)?
>>We are wondering what to use for the log files.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--050308030100090101020702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>The most likely factor that would influence SAN disk performance
would be load applied by other hosts (mostly on the disks themselves,
but also the SAN cache & controllers). With the local disks
they're always 100% dedicated to the SQL host, but often (not always
but often) the RAID group on the SAN that you get your LUNs for SQL
from will also be used by other systems like email, other SQL hosts,
file servers, VMs, etc.<br>
<br>
Also, depending on how the cache on the SAN is configured it may not be
very useful for what SQL will use the LUN for (so that 2GB cache may be
useless). For example, if the cache is configured mostly for read,
then that's not going to help transaction log LUNs, which are almost
exclusively write only.<br>
<br>
Most of the time I would think SAN LUNs ought to give better
performance, all things being equal, but I can see cases (and have
experienced them myself - sharing with Exchange can be a dog) where
local DAS disks can yield better performance.<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Michael D'Angelo wrote:
<blockquote cite="miduHUeVXHdGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Linchi Shea" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com"><LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:3EAE716E-B80B-41E8-86BD-53C672D67935@.microsoft.com">news:3EAE716E-B80B-41E8-86BD-53C672D67935@.microsoft.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The SAN should be faster than local disks, but that depends on
what other systems are also using the SAN.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">SAN is not necessarily faster than local disks, and it doesn't depend on
what other systems are using the SAN. Whether you get better performance
with
SAN or local disks depends on how they are configured.
Conceivably, you can >almost< always configure local disks to outperform
disks presented from SAN.
Linchi
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
I'd be interested to see when that would be the case. If both cases have
the same disk configuration, but your local raid controller has, say, 128mb
of cache, but the SAN has a 2gb cache, wouldn't the SAN conceivable
outperform local disk?
Of course I can see if local disks or the SAN can provide more physical
disks than the other, then that would make a difference.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Michael D'Angelo" wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">RAID10 will be faster than RAID1 whether it's on the SAN or not. The SAN
should be faster than local disks, but that depends on what other systems
are also using the SAN.
"Shiva" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:arbitsquare@.hotmail.com"><arbitsquare@.hotmail.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl">news:Oj9AKs5cGHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Which one is faster RAID 1 (on local disk drives) or RAID 10 (on a
SAN)?
We are wondering what to use for the log files.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--050308030100090101020702--