RAID 10 Setup Question

Hi Everyone
I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
this new server.
It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
partition then for the following:
Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA
E: SQL LOG FILES
I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
partitions but I may be wrong.
IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
what does everyone recommend i do?
Mattie
Using logical partitions on the same physical drive array do nothing for
performance but can give the illusion as such to people who may not know
that physical layout. If there is no choice but to have a single drive array
I prefer to have only 1 partition. That way there is never a problem if you
made one too large or too small later down the road.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>
|||MattieG,
I definitely understand Andrew's contention that unpartitioned is less
deceptive. (And partitioning caused me some serious grief once.)
Do you think you will get leverage to eventually separate the disks so that
you have log files on a different physical array? If so, then partitioning
now will allow your file paths to be set up for the future arrival of real
disks. But, if you do not do it now, it is not difficult to move files in
that happy future day.
RLF
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>
|||Cool, that confirmed my suspicions
Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
possibly OS+Database
and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
Mattie
|||I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
files.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions
> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
> possibly OS+Database
> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
> Mattie
>
|||Here is an article I wrote on setting up disk configurations.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1262122,00.html
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"MattieG" wrote:

> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>
|||?Hi
Thanks for everything I will order some more disks.
Mattie
|||I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5 set
for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than heavy
insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active
spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than a 4 disk
raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At least I THINK
it works that way. ;)
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
>a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
>tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
>doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
>files.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||>The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active spindles for reads which will offer
>50% better read throughput than a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2
>active spindles serving data.
Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to 50%
in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access
both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5
>set for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than
>heavy insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3
>active spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than
>a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At
>least I THINK it works that way. ;)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
|||>>And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access both disks in[vbcol=seagreen]
That was the part I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if the controller
would be able to maintain data integrity if it flipped back and forth
between the drives accessing different areas for different read/write
operations.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uapeltnwHHA.4800@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
> strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to
> 50% in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can
> access both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different
> operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

RAID 10 Setup Question

Hi Everyone
I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
this new server.
It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
partition then for the following:
Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA
E: SQL LOG FILES
I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
partitions but I may be wrong.
IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
what does everyone recommend i do?
MattieUsing logical partitions on the same physical drive array do nothing for
performance but can give the illusion as such to people who may not know
that physical layout. If there is no choice but to have a single drive array
I prefer to have only 1 partition. That way there is never a problem if you
made one too large or too small later down the road.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||MattieG,
I definitely understand Andrew's contention that unpartitioned is less
deceptive. (And partitioning caused me some serious grief once.)
Do you think you will get leverage to eventually separate the disks so that
you have log files on a different physical array? If so, then partitioning
now will allow your file paths to be set up for the future arrival of real
disks. But, if you do not do it now, it is not difficult to move files in
that happy future day.
RLF
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||Cool, that confirmed my suspicions :)
Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
possibly OS+Database
and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
Mattie|||I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
files.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions :)
> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
> possibly OS+Database
> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
> Mattie
>|||Here is an article I wrote on setting up disk configurations.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1262122,00.html
--
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"MattieG" wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||?Hi
Thanks for everything :) I will order some more disks.
Mattie|||I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5 set
for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than heavy
insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active
spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than a 4 disk
raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At least I THINK
it works that way. ;)
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
>a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
>tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
>doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
>files.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions :)
>> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
>> possibly OS+Database
>> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
>> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
>> Mattie
>>
>|||>The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active spindles for reads which will offer
>50% better read throughput than a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2
>active spindles serving data.
Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to 50%
in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access
both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5
>set for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than
>heavy insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3
>active spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than
>a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At
>least I THINK it works that way. ;)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and
>>create a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user
>>and tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The
>>OS doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
>>files.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions :)
>> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
>> possibly OS+Database
>> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
>> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
>> Mattie
>>
>>
>|||>>And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access both disks in
>>the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
That was the part I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if the controller
would be able to maintain data integrity if it flipped back and forth
between the drives accessing different areas for different read/write
operations.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uapeltnwHHA.4800@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active spindles for reads which will
> >offer 50% better read throughput than a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only
> >2 active spindles serving data.
> Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
> strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to
> 50% in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can
> access both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different
> operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5
>>set for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than
>>heavy insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3
>>active spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than
>>a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At
>>least I THINK it works that way. ;)
>> --
>> TheSQLGuru
>> President
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and
>>create a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user
>>and tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The
>>OS doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
>>files.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions :)
>> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
>> possibly OS+Database
>> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
>> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
>> Mattie
>>
>>
>>
>|||don't think that raid controler is permitted to perform different tasks on
mirrored disks.
smart [very smart & very expensive] raid controler may perform doubled read
from raid1 array, reading at the same time sector_x from disk_0, and
sector_y from disk_1, so having read two sectors at the time tick of just
one.
for this reason raid controler should have very good knowledge of current
head/track location of each disks, and to manage them separately.
information i found just show that this is rarely a case, mostly raid
controler uses just one of raid1 disks for reading, usualy one having better
response time.
the best thing i found useful is using *outer* cylindres for best
performances. on new disks, 25% of outer cylindres has a 25% better
throughoutput then the rest of disk. so, i made on each disk two partitions,
outer, for quick files transfer/read, and inner, for some backup [to not
waste space].
my sql database is only 20gig,, so the smaller outer partition on larger
disks is quite enough.
for tempdb, which needs quick read/write, but not to survive shutdown, maybe
to use i-ram [it is pc card with 4gb ram, connected to mb as ordinarly sata
drive] since it is very fast, but limited to 4gb, possible to form jbod
disk, i-ram and one regular hd, so to allow tempdb, if overgow the 4gb space
to take place on larger second drive.
just my few observations ...
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uBYpnj8wHHA.3796@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access both disks in
> >>the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
> That was the part I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if the controller
> would be able to maintain data integrity if it flipped back and forth
> between the drives accessing different areas for different read/write
> operations.
>|||I haven't gone to that level recently but I remember years ago the DPT raid
controllers used to be able to read from one disk and write to the other at
the same time. It would then do the necessary deferred writes to keep them
in sync of coarse. As long as the cache and types of activities were
compatible it seemed to work just fine. So I assume with more modern
technology this is still true but I can't confirm that for sure.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"sali" <gabor.salai@.tel.net.ba> wrote in message
news:%236csKJ$wHHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> don't think that raid controler is permitted to perform different tasks on
> mirrored disks.
> smart [very smart & very expensive] raid controler may perform doubled
> read
> from raid1 array, reading at the same time sector_x from disk_0, and
> sector_y from disk_1, so having read two sectors at the time tick of just
> one.
> for this reason raid controler should have very good knowledge of current
> head/track location of each disks, and to manage them separately.
> information i found just show that this is rarely a case, mostly raid
> controler uses just one of raid1 disks for reading, usualy one having
> better
> response time.
> the best thing i found useful is using *outer* cylindres for best
> performances. on new disks, 25% of outer cylindres has a 25% better
> throughoutput then the rest of disk. so, i made on each disk two
> partitions,
> outer, for quick files transfer/read, and inner, for some backup [to not
> waste space].
> my sql database is only 20gig,, so the smaller outer partition on larger
> disks is quite enough.
> for tempdb, which needs quick read/write, but not to survive shutdown,
> maybe
> to use i-ram [it is pc card with 4gb ram, connected to mb as ordinarly
> sata
> drive] since it is very fast, but limited to 4gb, possible to form jbod
> disk, i-ram and one regular hd, so to allow tempdb, if overgow the 4gb
> space
> to take place on larger second drive.
> just my few observations ...
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uBYpnj8wHHA.3796@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >>And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access both disks in
>> >>the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
>> That was the part I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if the controller
>> would be able to maintain data integrity if it flipped back and forth
>> between the drives accessing different areas for different read/write
>> operations.
>
>

RAID 10 Setup Question

Hi Everyone
I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
this new server.
It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
partition then for the following:
Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
C: OS
D: SQL DATA
E: SQL LOG FILES
I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
partitions but I may be wrong.
IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
what does everyone recommend i do?
MattieUsing logical partitions on the same physical drive array do nothing for
performance but can give the illusion as such to people who may not know
that physical layout. If there is no choice but to have a single drive array
I prefer to have only 1 partition. That way there is never a problem if you
made one too large or too small later down the road.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||MattieG,
I definitely understand Andrew's contention that unpartitioned is less
deceptive. (And partitioning caused me some serious grief once.)
Do you think you will get leverage to eventually separate the disks so that
you have log files on a different physical array? If so, then partitioning
now will allow your file paths to be set up for the future arrival of real
disks. But, if you do not do it now, it is not difficult to move files in
that happy future day.
RLF
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183731888.891067.55660@.g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||Cool, that confirmed my suspicions
Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
possibly OS+Database
and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
Mattie|||I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
files.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Cool, that confirmed my suspicions
> Im actually looking at getting a couple more disks for the OS or
> possibly OS+Database
> and maybe use the raid 10 for the log files only.
> Unless I use 3 raid 1 arrays for OS / Database / Logfile?
> Mattie
>|||Here is an article I wrote on setting up disk configurations.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.c...1262122,00.html
Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration /
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP (dbadmin, dbdev)
"MattieG" wrote:

> Hi Everyone
> I really need some clarification on this issue before I start using
> this new server.
> It has 4 Drives in a RAID 10 config and I need to know if I should
> partition then for the following:
> Setup 1 - everything on C: Partiton
> Setup 2 - 2 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA / SQL LOGFILES
> Setup 3 - 3 Partitions
> C: OS
> D: SQL DATA
> E: SQL LOG FILES
> I would have thought there would be more head movement in 2 and 3
> partitions but I may be wrong.
> IU know SQL does use all the memory which is fine it has 4 gig but
> what does everyone recommend i do?
> Mattie
>|||?Hi
Thanks for everything I will order some more disks.
Mattie|||I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5 set
for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than heavy
insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active
spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than a 4 disk
raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At least I THINK
it works that way. ;)
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I don't know how busy this will be but if you get two more disks and create
>a Raid 1 I would put the OS and possibly the log files (both user and
>tempdb) on that array. Then leave the data files on the Raid 10. The OS
>doesn't get used much and at least you would separate the data and log
>files.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "MattieG" <mattiegriffin@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1183737319.730417.129770@.c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>|||>The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3 active spindles for reads which will offer
>50% better read throughput than a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2
>active spindles serving data.
Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to 50%
in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access
both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different operations.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I will add one comment to Andrew's suggestion. Consider a 4 disk raid 5
>set for your data files if the databases are more select oriented than
>heavy insert/update/delete oriented. The 4 disk raid 5 will get you 3
>active spindles for reads which will offer 50% better read throughput than
>a 4 disk raid 10 set which has only 2 active spindles serving data. At
>least I THINK it works that way. ;)
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:O7NP4Q$vHHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||>>And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can access both disks in
That was the part I wasn't sure about. I didn't know if the controller
would be able to maintain data integrity if it flipped back and forth
between the drives accessing different areas for different read/write
operations.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uapeltnwHHA.4800@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not quite. While a 4 disk RAID 5 may outperform a 4 disk Raid 10 for
> strictly read operations of large scale it will not be anywhere close to
> 50% in my experience. And don't forget that a smart Raid controller can
> access both disks in the mirrored pair at the same time for different
> operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eeDOTMkwHHA.600@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

RAID - config Question

hard to really answer but here is the question
Your opinions please:
I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLTP,
Etc)
All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This is
dev platform only not a production environment.
Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
However, My thoughts are this.....
If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I will
have 6 disks to stripe across....
If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provide
best performance ?"
A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
Thanks in advance
Greg Jackson
Portland, OR
GAJ
pdxJaxon wrote:
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B.
> This is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume
> and DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
> Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would
> typically want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1
> single volume, I will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery
> Backed Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs
and tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much
data you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2
3-disk arrays.
Where is the OS located?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||o.s. will be with Tlogs and tempdb
Currently I have 3 and 3 and my DTS jobs are absolutely PEGGING the IO on my
TempDB Volume.
to be expected as I'm moving 10's of millions of records. BUT, if I can
improve by reconfiguring and speed this up, I can reduce the cost of the
effort here.
(taking 8+ hours now. If I can increase performance by 10% it is a
significant savings)
GAJ
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23igp2gsEFHA.3032@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> pdxJaxon wrote:
> Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs and
> tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much data
> you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2 3-disk
> arrays.
> Where is the OS located?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the Log
files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for the
data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user data
files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files. If
you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as well
but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the caching on
the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a big
improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of rows
is pretty bad.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This
> is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I
> will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>
|||actually I misspoke.
the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
By Volume I mean an array.
I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
If so, that is an easy change.
GAJ
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
> tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the
> Log files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for
> the data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user
> data files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files.
> If you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as
> well but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the
> caching on the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a
> big improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of
> rows is pretty bad.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||pdxJaxon wrote:
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records
> (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
If the databases are on the same server, I might try the following:
Array 1 - OS + TempDB (2 drives) - only writes
Array 2 - Database 1 - only reads
Array 3 - Database 2 - only writes
Make sure your clustered indexes are not causing the data to insert out
of order. If so, consider dropping the clustered indexes before the load
or redesign to a key that won't cause page splitting.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Hi,
I think Andrew really nailed it.
This is might be a good opportunity to tweak the IoPageLockLimit registry
setting on your server. I believe Windows restricts the amount of RAM that
can be locked for file system operations to 512 kb. I would play around with
this setting and see if you can gain any performance...
Also, your G4 has at least 1 MB of L2 cache (depending how many CPUs you
have, it could be up to 2 MB). Windows is optimized for 256 KB so you might
want to check the SecondLevelDataCache setting.
If your business still requires better performance after all the tips given
by the previous people, you could invest 500$ to get a second array
controller (such as the Smart Array 641)...
Sasan Saidi
MSc in CS, MCSE4, IBM Certified MQ 5.3 Administrator
Senior DBA
"pdxJaxon" wrote:

> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLTP,
> Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This is
> dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I will
> have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provide
> best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>
>
|||thanks a ton.
I'm gonna look into these settings
GAJ
|||SQL Server does not need read cache on the controller since it does it's own
read ahead caching anyway and will usually do a better job at predicting
what it will need. You are doing massive writes and your disks probably
can't handle the load by them selves so going 100% write cache will help a
ton. Since you are doing so much tempdb and log activity you want to make
sure the tempdb is not on the same disk as the logs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udwH1ftEFHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
> GAJ
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks,
I'm gonna light this up Today...!
GJ

RAID - config Question

hard to really answer but here is the question
Your opinions please:
I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLTP,
Etc)
All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This is
dev platform only not a production environment.
Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
However, My thoughts are this.....
If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I will
have 6 disks to stripe across....
If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provide
best performance ?"
A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
Thanks in advance
Greg Jackson
Portland, OR
GAJpdxJaxon wrote:
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B.
> This is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume
> and DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
> Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would
> typically want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1
> single volume, I will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery
> Backed Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs
and tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much
data you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2
3-disk arrays.
Where is the OS located?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||o.s. will be with Tlogs and tempdb
Currently I have 3 and 3 and my DTS jobs are absolutely PEGGING the IO on my
TempDB Volume.
to be expected as I'm moving 10's of millions of records. BUT, if I can
improve by reconfiguring and speed this up, I can reduce the cost of the
effort here.
(taking 8+ hours now. If I can increase performance by 10% it is a
significant savings)
GAJ
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23igp2gsEFHA.3032@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> pdxJaxon wrote:
> Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs and
> tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much data
> you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2 3-disk
> arrays.
> Where is the OS located?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the Log
files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for the
data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user data
files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files. If
you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as well
but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the caching on
the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a big
improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of rows
is pretty bad.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This
> is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I
> will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>|||actually I misspoke.
the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
By Volume I mean an array.
I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
If so, that is an easy change.
GAJ
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
> tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the
> Log files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for
> the data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user
> data files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files.
> If you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as
> well but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the
> caching on the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a
> big improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of
> rows is pretty bad.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||pdxJaxon wrote:
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records
> (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
If the databases are on the same server, I might try the following:
Array 1 - OS + TempDB (2 drives) - only writes
Array 2 - Database 1 - only reads
Array 3 - Database 2 - only writes
Make sure your clustered indexes are not causing the data to insert out
of order. If so, consider dropping the clustered indexes before the load
or redesign to a key that won't cause page splitting.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi,
I think Andrew really nailed it.
This is might be a good opportunity to tweak the IoPageLockLimit registry
setting on your server. I believe Windows restricts the amount of RAM that
can be locked for file system operations to 512 kb. I would play around with
this setting and see if you can gain any performance...
Also, your G4 has at least 1 MB of L2 cache (depending how many CPUs you
have, it could be up to 2 MB). Windows is optimized for 256 KB so you might
want to check the SecondLevelDataCache setting.
If your business still requires better performance after all the tips given
by the previous people, you could invest 500$ to get a second array
controller (such as the Smart Array 641)...
--
Sasan Saidi
MSc in CS, MCSE4, IBM Certified MQ 5.3 Administrator
Senior DBA
"pdxJaxon" wrote:

> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLT
P,
> Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This
is
> dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I wi
ll
> have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provi
de
> best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>
>|||thanks a ton.
I'm gonna look into these settings
GAJ|||SQL Server does not need read cache on the controller since it does it's own
read ahead caching anyway and will usually do a better job at predicting
what it will need. You are doing massive writes and your disks probably
can't handle the load by them selves so going 100% write cache will help a
ton. Since you are doing so much tempdb and log activity you want to make
sure the tempdb is not on the same disk as the logs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udwH1ftEFHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
> GAJ
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks,
I'm gonna light this up Today...!
GJsql

RAID - config Question

hard to really answer but here is the question
Your opinions please:
I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLTP,
Etc)
All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This is
dev platform only not a production environment.
Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
However, My thoughts are this.....
If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I will
have 6 disks to stripe across....
If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provide
best performance ?"
A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
Thanks in advance
Greg Jackson
Portland, OR
GAJpdxJaxon wrote:
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B.
> This is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume
> and DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
> Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would
> typically want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1
> single volume, I will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery
> Backed Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs
and tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much
data you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2
3-disk arrays.
Where is the OS located?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||o.s. will be with Tlogs and tempdb
Currently I have 3 and 3 and my DTS jobs are absolutely PEGGING the IO on my
TempDB Volume.
to be expected as I'm moving 10's of millions of records. BUT, if I can
improve by reconfiguring and speed this up, I can reduce the cost of the
effort here.
(taking 8+ hours now. If I can increase performance by 10% it is a
significant savings)
GAJ
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23igp2gsEFHA.3032@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> pdxJaxon wrote:
>> hard to really answer but here is the question
>> Your opinions please:
>> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
>> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
>> OLTP, Etc)
>> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B.
>> This is dev platform only not a production environment.
>> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume
>> and DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
>> However, My thoughts are this.....
>> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
>> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
>> Tolerance)
>> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would
>> typically want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1
>> single volume, I will have 6 disks to stripe across....
>> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
>> provide best performance ?"
>> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
>> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
>> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery
>> Backed Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
>> Thanks in advance
>> Greg Jackson
>> Portland, OR
>> GAJ
> Using only striping, I might consider a simple 2 disk array for t-logs and
> tempdb and a 4disk array for the data. But it depends on how much data
> you're inserting/updating. If the t-log is extremely active use 2 3-disk
> arrays.
> Where is the OS located?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the Log
files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for the
data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user data
files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files. If
you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as well
but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the caching on
the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a big
improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of rows
is pretty bad.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
> OLTP, Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This
> is dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I
> will have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
> provide best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>|||actually I misspoke.
the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
By Volume I mean an array.
I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
If so, that is an easy change.
GAJ
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If fault
> tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and the
> Log files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5 for
> the data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the user
> data files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data files.
> If you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file out as
> well but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change the
> caching on the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should see a
> big improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of millions of
> rows is pretty bad.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> hard to really answer but here is the question
>> Your opinions please:
>> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
>> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
>> OLTP, Etc)
>> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This
>> is dev platform only not a production environment.
>> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
>> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
>> However, My thoughts are this.....
>> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
>> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
>> Tolerance)
>> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
>> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I
>> will have 6 disks to stripe across....
>> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
>> provide best performance ?"
>> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
>> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
>> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
>> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
>> Thanks in advance
>> Greg Jackson
>> Portland, OR
>> GAJ
>|||pdxJaxon wrote:
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records
> (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
If the databases are on the same server, I might try the following:
Array 1 - OS + TempDB (2 drives) - only writes
Array 2 - Database 1 - only reads
Array 3 - Database 2 - only writes
Make sure your clustered indexes are not causing the data to insert out
of order. If so, consider dropping the clustered indexes before the load
or redesign to a key that won't cause page splitting.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi,
I think Andrew really nailed it.
This is might be a good opportunity to tweak the IoPageLockLimit registry
setting on your server. I believe Windows restricts the amount of RAM that
can be locked for file system operations to 512 kb. I would play around with
this setting and see if you can gain any performance...
Also, your G4 has at least 1 MB of L2 cache (depending how many CPUs you
have, it could be up to 2 MB). Windows is optimized for 256 KB so you might
want to check the SecondLevelDataCache setting.
If your business still requires better performance after all the tips given
by the previous people, you could invest 500$ to get a second array
controller (such as the Smart Array 641)...
--
Sasan Saidi
MSc in CS, MCSE4, IBM Certified MQ 5.3 Administrator
Senior DBA
"pdxJaxon" wrote:
> hard to really answer but here is the question
> Your opinions please:
> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO OLTP,
> Etc)
> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B. This is
> dev platform only not a production environment.
> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume and
> DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
> However, My thoughts are this.....
> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt really
> that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault Tolerance)
> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would typically
> want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single volume, I will
> have 6 disks to stripe across....
> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely provide
> best performance ?"
> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
> Thanks in advance
> Greg Jackson
> Portland, OR
> GAJ
>
>|||thanks a ton.
I'm gonna look into these settings
GAJ|||SQL Server does not need read cache on the controller since it does it's own
read ahead caching anyway and will usually do a better job at predicting
what it will need. You are doing massive writes and your disks probably
can't handle the load by them selves so going 100% write cache will help a
ton. Since you are doing so much tempdb and log activity you want to make
sure the tempdb is not on the same disk as the logs.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udwH1ftEFHA.960@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> actually I misspoke.
> the entire job is moving a more than 10s of millions of records (~60GB).
> I have individual tables with 10s of millions of records.
> Not the biggest db I"ve ever played with, but it's non-trivial.
> By Volume I mean an array.
> I have 2 arrays with 3 disks each Both RAID 0.
> On array 1 I have C: (OS) and D: (Logs and TempDB)
> On Array 2, I have E: (Data and Indexes)
>
> You think making the Cache 100% writes will help ?
> I am reading from DB A and Writing to DB B .....
> If so, that is an easy change.
>
> GAJ
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OuYeHJtEFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> By volume I hope you mean array and not simply a logical device. If
>> fault tolerance is not an issue then why not have one disk for the OS and
>> the Log files (both tempdb and the user dbs). Then either use the other 5
>> for the data files or take one or two for tempdb and the others for the
>> user data files. You absolutely need to separate the logs from the data
>> files. If you have that much tempdb you may want to split that data file
>> out as well but only testing will tell for sure. In either case change
>> the caching on the disk controller to be 100% write back and you should
>> see a big improvement as well. 8 hours to process only a few 10's of
>> millions of rows is pretty bad.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:emi80CsEFHA.732@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> hard to really answer but here is the question
>> Your opinions please:
>> I have 6 15k 72GB Drives in an ARRAY.
>> This box is ONLY used for doing Data Transfer Activity (DTS Jobs) (NO
>> OLTP, Etc)
>> All I do on this box is copy mass amounts of data from DB A to DB B.
>> This is dev platform only not a production environment.
>> Generally speaking, I know that placing Logs and TempDB on one Volume
>> and DATA\Indexes on another Volume is preferable.
>> However, My thoughts are this.....
>> If I create 2 seperate Volumes, Each volume would have 3 disks. NOt
>> really that great for Striping (I'm using RAID 0 As I need no Fault
>> Tolerance)
>> If I use 1 Volume, I'm not getting the Seperation that we would
>> typically want in a production OLTP Environment. However, with 1 single
>> volume, I will have 6 disks to stripe across....
>> If data copy performance was your main objective, which would likely
>> provide best performance ?"
>> A) 2 volumes with 3 disks each
>> B) 1 volume with all 6 disks
>> This is an HP DL-380 with 6i Raid Controller and 128mb of Battery Backed
>> Read/Write Cache (Configured 50/50)
>> Thanks in advance
>> Greg Jackson
>> Portland, OR
>> GAJ
>>
>|||Thanks,
I'm gonna light this up Today...!
GJ

Quickie: SMTP config for attachments

I can configure a working subscription to e-mail through my SMTP server when
sending only the LINK to a report but not if I attach the report to the
e-mail in say excel or xml format.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
TravisSomeone must have an idea... please! :-)
I have tested using a command line SMTP utility and have been able to send
both a plain text message and a plain text message wth and attachment so I
know the Mail server will accept it.
Someone, Anyone?
Thanks
Travis
"REM7600" <rem7600@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eumyP3OdEHA.1692@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I can configure a working subscription to e-mail through my SMTP server
when
> sending only the LINK to a report but not if I attach the report to the
> e-mail in say excel or xml format.
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks
> Travis
>|||Here's the error from the log... I can't make much of it... Other than the
part that says please see the log files...
ReportingServicesService!emailextension!728!07/29/2004-07:32:05:: Error
sending email.
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Diagnostics.Utilities.RSException: The Report
Server has encountered a configuration error; more details in the log
files -->
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Diagnostics.Utilities.ServerConfigurationErrorEx
ception: The Report Server has encountered a configuration error; more
details in the log files
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Authorization.Native.GetAuthzContextForUser(IntP
tr userSid)
at Microsoft.ReportingServices.Authorization.Native.IsAdmin(String
userName)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Authorization.WindowsAuthorization.IsAdmin(Strin
g userName, IntPtr userToken)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Authorization.WindowsAuthorization.CheckAccess(S
tring userName, IntPtr userToken, Byte[] secDesc, ReportOperation
requiredOperation)
at Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.Security.CheckAccess(ItemType
catItemType, Byte[] secDesc, ReportOperation rptOper)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RSService._GetReportParameterDefinitionF
romCatalog(CatalogItemContext reportContext, String historyID, Boolean
forRendering, Guid& reportID, Int32& executionOption, String&
savedParametersXml, ReportSnapshot& compiledDefinition, ReportSnapshot&
snapshotData, Guid& linkID, DateTime& historyDate)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RSService._GetReportParameters(String
report, String historyID, Boolean forRendering, NameValueCollection values,
DatasourceCredentialsCollection credentials)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RSService.RenderAsLiveOrSnapshot(Catalog
ItemContext reportContext, ClientRequest session, Warning[]& warnings,
ParameterInfoCollection& effectiveParameters)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RSService.RenderFirst(CatalogItemContext
reportContext, ClientRequest session, Warning[]& warnings,
ParameterInfoCollection& effectiveParameters, String[]&
secondaryStreamNames)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RenderFirstCancelableStep.Execute()
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Diagnostics.CancelablePhaseBase.ExecuteWrapper()
-- End of inner exception stack trace --
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Diagnostics.CancelablePhaseBase.ExecuteWrapper()
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.RenderFirstCancelableStep.RenderFirst(RS
Service rs, CatalogItemContext reportContext, ClientRequest session,
JobTypeEnum type, Warning[]& warnings, ParameterInfoCollection&
effectiveParameters, String[]& secondaryStreamNames)
at Microsoft.ReportingServices.Library.ReportImpl.Render(String
renderFormat, String deviceInfo)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.EmailDeliveryProvider.EmailProvider.ConstructMes
sageBody(IMessage message, Notification notification, SubscriptionData data)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.EmailDeliveryProvider.EmailProvider.CreateMessag
e(Notification notification)
at
Microsoft.ReportingServices.EmailDeliveryProvider.EmailProvider.Deliver(Noti
fication notification)