RAID 1 and write caching raid controllers

Currently I have a database server that has the log files on a raid array
supported by a controller that does NOT support write caching, only 100%
read. I have another raid controller on the server that does support write
caching.
Would there be any performace benefits from having the raid 1 array with the
log files supported by the raid controller with write caching over one that
does not?
Thanks!!!yes, as unless there is a rollback or some recovery operation the log is
mostly a write-to file therefore you could reduce some queue time if you put
the log on the write cache controller...but what are you going to put ont he
read caching controller ?
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A7EEFFFA-A36A-4928-A64C-0A44435CB74A@.microsoft.com...
> Currently I have a database server that has the log files on a raid array
> supported by a controller that does NOT support write caching, only 100%
> read. I have another raid controller on the server that does support write
> caching.
> Would there be any performace benefits from having the raid 1 array with
> the
> log files supported by the raid controller with write caching over one
> that
> does not?
> Thanks!!!|||Great, thanks for the reply.
Dunno. I suppose nothing.
"David J. Cartwright" wrote:
> yes, as unless there is a rollback or some recovery operation the log is
> mostly a write-to file therefore you could reduce some queue time if you put
> the log on the write cache controller...but what are you going to put ont he
> read caching controller ?
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A7EEFFFA-A36A-4928-A64C-0A44435CB74A@.microsoft.com...
> > Currently I have a database server that has the log files on a raid array
> > supported by a controller that does NOT support write caching, only 100%
> > read. I have another raid controller on the server that does support write
> > caching.
> >
> > Would there be any performace benefits from having the raid 1 array with
> > the
> > log files supported by the raid controller with write caching over one
> > that
> > does not?
> >
> > Thanks!!!
>
>|||Is the cache battery backed up and is the machine on a UPS?
SQL does read the log too.
Paul
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15119B01-2F8D-464D-A287-75D3CFFDBBD3@.microsoft.com...
> Great, thanks for the reply.
> Dunno. I suppose nothing.
> "David J. Cartwright" wrote:
>> yes, as unless there is a rollback or some recovery operation the log is
>> mostly a write-to file therefore you could reduce some queue time if you
>> put
>> the log on the write cache controller...but what are you going to put ont
>> he
>> read caching controller ?
>> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A7EEFFFA-A36A-4928-A64C-0A44435CB74A@.microsoft.com...
>> > Currently I have a database server that has the log files on a raid
>> > array
>> > supported by a controller that does NOT support write caching, only
>> > 100%
>> > read. I have another raid controller on the server that does support
>> > write
>> > caching.
>> >
>> > Would there be any performace benefits from having the raid 1 array
>> > with
>> > the
>> > log files supported by the raid controller with write caching over one
>> > that
>> > does not?
>> >
>> > Thanks!!!
>>