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.

Quickest Way

Dear Professionals,
One quick question, what is the quickest way to copy the all the database
from one server to another including database logins and jobs and every
thing..
Thanks
The quickest way to get the db's over is probably a detach, copy and attach.
Logins and such require a little more work. But here are some links that
should help:
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/moving_sql_server.htm Moving DBs
http://www.databasejournal.com/featu...le.php/3379901 Moving
system DB's
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=314546 Moving DB's between Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224071 Moving SQL Server Databases
to a New Location with Detach/Attach
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=221465 Using WITH MOVE in a Restore
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/colu...rdatabases.asp
Moving Users
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after
a Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
users
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
Issues When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scri...p?scriptid=599
Restoring a .mdf
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=307775 Disaster Recovery Articles
for SQL Server
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=320125 Moving a Diagram
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274463 Copy DB Wizard issues 2000
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scri...tions/1598.asp Script
Roles and Permissions
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Rogers" <naissani@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%237EBVKJGGHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Dear Professionals,
> One quick question, what is the quickest way to copy the all the database
> from one server to another including database logins and jobs and every
> thing..
> Thanks
>