RAID5 for all files?

In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
the case? Just wondering.
Thanks.
Josh
No...Raid 5 still sucks. The baarf web site is still in
operation - http://www.baarf.com/
Logs being separated out on a Raid 1 or Raid 10 is still
recommended - see the Storage Best Practices:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx
-Sue
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:17:18 -0700, JXStern
<JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote:

>In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
>files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
>In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
>Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
>I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
>RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
>factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
>the case? Just wondering.
>Thanks.
>Josh
|||As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
OLTP system.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:kd4db35ek3ge7ldau600i4tk7igv6irns6@.4ax.com...
> In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
> files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
> In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
> Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
> I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
> RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
> factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
> the case? Just wondering.
> Thanks.
> Josh
>
|||On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:50:20 -0400, "Andrew J. Kelly"
<sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote:

>As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
>OLTP system.
And even less good for a busy ETL system building gigabyte tables and
output files?
J.
sql

RAID5 for all files?

In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
the case? Just wondering.
Thanks.
JoshNo...Raid 5 still sucks. The baarf web site is still in
operation - http://www.baarf.com/
Logs being separated out on a Raid 1 or Raid 10 is still
recommended - see the Storage Best Practices:
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx[
/url]
-Sue
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:17:18 -0700, JXStern
<JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote:

>In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
>files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
>In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
>Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
>I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
>RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
>factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
>the case? Just wondering.
>Thanks.
>Josh|||As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
OLTP system.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:kd4db35ek3ge7ldau600i4tk7igv6irns6@.
4ax.com...
> In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
> files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
> In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
> Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
> I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
> RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
> factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
> the case? Just wondering.
> Thanks.
> Josh
>|||On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:50:20 -0400, "Andrew J. Kelly"
<sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote:

>As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
>OLTP system.
And even less good for a busy ETL system building gigabyte tables and
output files?
J.

RAID5 for all files?

In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
the case? Just wondering. :)
Thanks.
JoshNo...Raid 5 still sucks. The baarf web site is still in
operation - http://www.baarf.com/
Logs being separated out on a Raid 1 or Raid 10 is still
recommended - see the Storage Best Practices:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/bestpractice/storage-top-10.mspx
-Sue
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:17:18 -0700, JXStern
<JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote:
>In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
>files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
>In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
>Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
>I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
>RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
>factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
>the case? Just wondering. :)
>Thanks.
>Josh|||As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
OLTP system.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:kd4db35ek3ge7ldau600i4tk7igv6irns6@.4ax.com...
> In the last few months I've run across two places that had all their
> files, including both data and logs, on big, fat RAID5 partitions.
> In fact, in one place even the OS and pagefile were on RAID5!
> Is this, like, a good idea all of a sudden, and nobody told me?
> I hautily informed them that putting in separate physical drives for a
> RAID1 set for logs, might provide a load/scalability/performance
> factor of 2x all by itself. Is it at all likely that this is actually
> the case? Just wondering. :)
> Thanks.
> Josh
>|||On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:50:20 -0400, "Andrew J. Kelly"
<sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote:
>As Sue mentions it is still not the best practice to use Raid5 for a busy
>OLTP system.
And even less good for a busy ETL system building gigabyte tables and
output files?
J.

RAID Configuration for SQL Server ...

Hi,
We are rolling out an ERP application from MS across our
organisation. And we are using MS SQL Server as the back
end. In this regard, I have few queries -
a) What would be the optimum RAID configuration for the
SQL Server database? Can someone point me towards any
guide?
b) Still we are in the initial stage of our roll out. So
we are not too sure about the growth of database. Is
there any tools available for estimating the size of
database?
Thanks in advance,
Harish MohanbabuHi
You may want to check out the book "SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning
Technical Reference" which talks about this in some depth ISBN 0-7356-1270-6
Also you may want to browse the site:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/
Such as:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/ultimate_sql_server.asp
The topic "Estimating the Size of a Database" in books online should help
you decide how big the data may get:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\cre
atedb.chm::/cm_8_des_02_2h45.htm
John
"Harish Mohanbabu" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:067c01c3cdfb$2d441db0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We are rolling out an ERP application from MS across our
> organisation. And we are using MS SQL Server as the back
> end. In this regard, I have few queries -
> a) What would be the optimum RAID configuration for the
> SQL Server database? Can someone point me towards any
> guide?
> b) Still we are in the initial stage of our roll out. So
> we are not too sure about the growth of database. Is
> there any tools available for estimating the size of
> database?
> Thanks in advance,
> Harish Mohanbabu|||Thanks for your kind and quick reply ....
>--Original Message--
>Hi
>You may want to check out the book "SQL Server 2000
Performance Tuning
>Technical Reference" which talks about this in some
depth ISBN 0-7356-1270-6
>Also you may want to browse the site:
>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/
>Such as:
>http://www.sql-server-
performance.com/ultimate_sql_server.asp
>The topic "Estimating the Size of a Database" in books
online should help
>you decide how big the data may get:
>mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%
20Server\80\Tools\Books\cre
>atedb.chm::/cm_8_des_02_2h45.htm
>John