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.

quick question

Write a sql that divides 8 by 3 cast 3 as a decimal rounded to 2 places \
???????????
HOW do i do this im confused and new to this!!!At least one of your values must be non-integer, and you must cast your final results to two decimal places of accuracy. Otherwise, SQL Server works with integers by default becuase they can be processed more quickly, and it will thus round off your answer.

All these work:
select cast(8/cast(3 as decimal(10,2)) as decimal(10,2))
select cast(cast(8 as decimal(10,2))/cast(3 as decimal(10,2)) as decimal(10,2))
select cast(8/3.0 as decimal(10,2))

...but this does not:
select cast(8/3 as decimal(10,2))

blindman|||Thanks a lot!!!|||bm: SQL does not choose integers because they are easy to work with...That's funny even to think that way :)

Read BOL on datatype conversion rules!!!|||rdj, you need to give it a rest already.|||Pigeon: I would, but bm never gives up :) Plus, his last answer was really funny, so I couldn't resist :D|||You're welcom, dirtysouthchick!

Glad I could be of help to you.

blindman|||go to bed, bm, tomorrow is just another day :)|||Just curious rdjabarov, why the beef with Blindie?|||Nevermind, I just caught up reading the other posts :)|||I don't have a beef, I just see that sometimes all of us (or some of us) prefer a p***ing contest over the opportunity to hear each other out. And I am as guilty in doing this as the next guy. I just don't want to be a part of a place like this, so I hope that we all re-think the reason why we chose to be here in the first place.

Other than that, - life is good :)