RAID1 vs RAID5 for transaction log

I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
doesn't seem to hurt that much).
Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
important than the Data?
If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance
Raid 5 performs very poorly on writes as does hp/compaq's ADG (Advanced data
guarding).
If your database is mainly reads then raid 5 is ok for the datafiles.
Also consider that if a disk fails and the array is having to construct a
phantom disk on the fly then the performance of your system will probably
make it unusable.
It's worth pulling a disk on a system before it goes live and practice the
recovery.
Personally I use a raid 10 array of 4 disks for my log (and raid 10 arrays
for my data too). A mirror pair may do for your log.
Paul
"TJT" <TJT@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uDWYpug5FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
> selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
> during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between
> RAID
> 1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
> It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
> doesn't seem to hurt that much).
> Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
> important than the Data?
> If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
> documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
> Thanks in advance
>
|||I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
though it's a vendor website):
http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
TJT wrote:

>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
>selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
>during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
>1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
>It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
>doesn't seem to hurt that much).
>Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
>important than the Data?
>If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
>documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
>Thanks in advance
>
>
|||RAID5 is terrible for heavily updated data, and the Transaction Log is the
prototypical worst case. Go for RAID 1. For database files/filegroups it
really depends on the update load. In general the feeling has been that
RAID 10 (aka 1+0) is better for databases since you get maximum performance
and availability. But if you have lightly updated tables then RAID 5 is
going to be OK.
If I remember correctly Kalen Delaney's "Inside SQL Server 2000" book has a
good discussion about this.
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
www.predictableit.com
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6mn%23ll5FHA.1276@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
> though it's a vendor website):
> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
> It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
> constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
> --
> *mike hodgson*
> blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
>
> TJT wrote:
>
sql

RAID1 vs RAID5 for transaction log

I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
doesn't seem to hurt that much).
Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
important than the Data?
If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advanceRaid 5 performs very poorly on writes as does hp/compaq's ADG (Advanced data
guarding).
If your database is mainly reads then raid 5 is ok for the datafiles.
Also consider that if a disk fails and the array is having to construct a
phantom disk on the fly then the performance of your system will probably
make it unusable.
It's worth pulling a disk on a system before it goes live and practice the
recovery.
Personally I use a raid 10 array of 4 disks for my log (and raid 10 arrays
for my data too). A mirror pair may do for your log.
Paul
"TJT" <TJT@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uDWYpug5FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
> selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
> during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between
> RAID
> 1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
> It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
> doesn't seem to hurt that much).
> Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
> important than the Data?
> If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
> documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
> Thanks in advance
>|||I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
though it's a vendor website):
http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
TJT wrote:

>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
>selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
>during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
>1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
>It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
>doesn't seem to hurt that much).
>Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
>important than the Data?
>If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
>documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
>Thanks in advance
>
>|||RAID5 is terrible for heavily updated data, and the Transaction Log is the
prototypical worst case. Go for RAID 1. For database files/filegroups it
really depends on the update load. In general the feeling has been that
RAID 10 (aka 1+0) is better for databases since you get maximum performance
and availability. But if you have lightly updated tables then RAID 5 is
going to be OK.
If I remember correctly Kalen Delaney's "Inside SQL Server 2000" book has a
good discussion about this.
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
www.predictableit.com
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6mn%23ll5FHA.1276@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
> though it's a vendor website):
> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
> It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
> constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
> --
> *mike hodgson*
> blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
>
> TJT wrote:
>
>

RAID1 vs RAID5 for transaction log

I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
doesn't seem to hurt that much).
Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
important than the Data?
If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advanceRaid 5 performs very poorly on writes as does hp/compaq's ADG (Advanced data
guarding).
If your database is mainly reads then raid 5 is ok for the datafiles.
Also consider that if a disk fails and the array is having to construct a
phantom disk on the fly then the performance of your system will probably
make it unusable.
It's worth pulling a disk on a system before it goes live and practice the
recovery.
Personally I use a raid 10 array of 4 disks for my log (and raid 10 arrays
for my data too). A mirror pair may do for your log.
Paul
"TJT" <TJT@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uDWYpug5FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
> selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
> during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between
> RAID
> 1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
> It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
> doesn't seem to hurt that much).
> Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
> important than the Data?
> If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
> documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
> Thanks in advance
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--060704050306020201010502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
though it's a vendor website):
http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
--
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
TJT wrote:
>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
>selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
>during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
>1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
>It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
>doesn't seem to hurt that much).
>Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
>important than the Data?
>If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
>documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
>Thanks in advance
>
>
--060704050306020201010502
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>I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview
(even though it's a vendor website):<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.acnc.com/raid.html</a><br>">http://www.acnc.com/raid.html">http://www.acnc.com/raid.html</a><br>
<br>
It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID
level is constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.<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">blog:</font><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>
TJT wrote:
<blockquote cite="miduDWYpug5FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between RAID
1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
doesn't seem to hurt that much).
Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
important than the Data?
If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--060704050306020201010502--|||RAID5 is terrible for heavily updated data, and the Transaction Log is the
prototypical worst case. Go for RAID 1. For database files/filegroups it
really depends on the update load. In general the feeling has been that
RAID 10 (aka 1+0) is better for databases since you get maximum performance
and availability. But if you have lightly updated tables then RAID 5 is
going to be OK.
If I remember correctly Kalen Delaney's "Inside SQL Server 2000" book has a
good discussion about this.
--
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
www.predictableit.com
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6mn%23ll5FHA.1276@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've always found this website to be a good RAID level overview (even
> though it's a vendor website):
> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
> It's not very detailed, just brief pros & cons and how the RAID level is
> constructed, but it's good info nonetheless.
> --
> *mike hodgson*
> blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
>
> TJT wrote:
>>I was hoping that someone could point me to some good documentation on
>>selecting an optimum RAID configuration. While performing heavy updates
>>during upgrades - I've noticed dramatic performance difference between
>>RAID
>>1 and RAID 5 for the transaction log.
>>It seems that it is less important for the data files themselves (RAID 5
>>doesn't seem to hurt that much).
>>Does this make sense where the RAID Configuration for the T-Log is more
>>important than the Data?
>>If someone could shed some light on this or point me to some good
>>documantation - I would greatly appreciate it.
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>
>

-R option in BCP

Hi all,
I m trying to use BCP utility to upload a huge text file.
As per microsoft documentation, -R is used to specify the
regional settings. My computer (client) and the sql server
(running in a network machine) has dd/mm/yyyy as the
regional settings. The incomming text file also has date
in dd/mm/yyyy format. But when i execute BCP with -R
option, i still get an invalid date format error message.
I went through a few microsoft support information, that
told me that SP1 should solve this problem. I got SP3a
installed (both in client and in the server).
So what am i missing here? I m sure some of u here
should have also faced the problem. Any type of help is
greatly appreciated.
thanks and regards,
s.ravi sankarAlready answered in several other ng's.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Ravi Sankar" <ravi_pv@.lycos.com> wrote in message
news:0aff01c3b026$b426bfb0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I m trying to use BCP utility to upload a huge text file.
> As per microsoft documentation, -R is used to specify the
> regional settings. My computer (client) and the sql server
> (running in a network machine) has dd/mm/yyyy as the
> regional settings. The incomming text file also has date
> in dd/mm/yyyy format. But when i execute BCP with -R
> option, i still get an invalid date format error message.
> I went through a few microsoft support information, that
> told me that SP1 should solve this problem. I got SP3a
> installed (both in client and in the server).
> So what am i missing here? I m sure some of u here
> should have also faced the problem. Any type of help is
> greatly appreciated.
> thanks and regards,
> s.ravi sankar
>