RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question

I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only for
the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
This is my question:
I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give me
enough HD space. So on with the question.
Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection, but
gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
overhead.
Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
So what do you guys think?
-King
yes.
go RAID 1+0
If you have time you can test this with a handful of IOStress test
utilities.
you could also talk directly to your vendor.
As I learned today, you will also want to maximize the WRITE Cache on the
RAID Controller(s).
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||Hi
Where are the transaction logs going? They are as critical to the Db as the
data files.
RAID-10 wins hands down. RAID-5 has just too much overhead for the parity.
From a safety perspective, on RAID-5, you loose 2 drives, bye bye data.
RAID -10 can lose half it's drives, as long as it is never both pairs of a
mirror.
So performance wins.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only
for
> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
> Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
> This is my question:
> I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
> for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give
me
> enough HD space. So on with the question.
> Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
> RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection,
but
> gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
> RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
> overhead.
> Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
> compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
> So what do you guys think?
>
> -King
>
|||Hi
Yes, have write cache, as long as the RAID card has battery backup. If not,
kiss your data goodbye as you will have some decent corruption.
For us, data security over performance, so write caching is off.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#62vk86EFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> yes.
> go RAID 1+0
> If you have time you can test this with a handful of IOStress test
> utilities.
> you could also talk directly to your vendor.
> As I learned today, you will also want to maximize the WRITE Cache on the
> RAID Controller(s).
>
> Cheers
> Greg Jackson
> PDX, Oregon
>
|||yes....HEAVENS YES.
One needs "battery backed" Cache.
GAJ
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:%23qs9yC7EFHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Yes, have write cache, as long as the RAID card has battery backup. If
not,
> kiss your data goodbye as you will have some decent corruption.
>
Yes we have a 72-hour backup on all RAID controllers
[vbcol=seagreen]
> For us, data security over performance, so write caching is off.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#62vk86EFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
the
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:e4EdmB7EFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Where are the transaction logs going? They are as critical to the Db as
the
> data files.
> RAID-10 wins hands down. RAID-5 has just too much overhead for the parity.
> From a safety perspective, on RAID-5, you loose 2 drives, bye bye data.
> RAID -10 can lose half it's drives, as long as it is never both pairs of a
> mirror.
> So performance wins.
Mike,
Thanks! Thats what i thought.. but what puzzled me was the spindols. Since
the RAID5 configuration would have more drives to spread the write acrossed
then the RAID 1+0 i wasn't sure if it mattered. Keep in mind i haven't got
the hardware yet... so no testing has been done. and yes i will do testing.
thanks for your input.
-King
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
> news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> for
faster[vbcol=seagreen]
give
> me
> but
>
|||In a Raid 1+0 you can't look at it as only x many drives to write to. In
your case you 10 drives that are configured as such. 5 Mirrored pairs that
are striped in a Raid 0 configuration. Yes that means you have to split the
data 5 ways vs. 9 for the Raid 5 but each split goes to a mirrored pair. The
mirrored pair has the option to read from one disk and write to the other,
write to both, read from both etc. It can be smart in how it reads and
writes to the mirrored pair. That plus the fact it doe not have to
calculate parity is a fast combination.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:%23qHC657EFHA.3672@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:e4EdmB7EFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> the
> Mike,
> Thanks! Thats what i thought.. but what puzzled me was the spindols.
> Since
> the RAID5 configuration would have more drives to spread the write
> acrossed
> then the RAID 1+0 i wasn't sure if it mattered. Keep in mind i haven't
> got
> the hardware yet... so no testing has been done. and yes i will do
> testing.
> thanks for your input.
> -King
>
> faster
> give
>
|||This website has great details and arguments why you should not use RAID 5
for a RDBMS implementation
http://www.baarf.com/
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2005 All rights reserved.
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only for
> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
> Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
> This is my question:
> I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
> for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give
> me
> enough HD space. So on with the question.
> Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
> RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection,
> but
> gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
> RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
> overhead.
> Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
> compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
> So what do you guys think?
>
> -King
>

RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question

I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only for
the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
This is my question:
I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give me
enough HD space. So on with the question.
Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection, but
gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
overhead.
Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
So what do you guys think?
-Kingyes.
go RAID 1+0
If you have time you can test this with a handful of IOStress test
utilities.
you could also talk directly to your vendor.
As I learned today, you will also want to maximize the WRITE Cache on the
RAID Controller(s).
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Hi
Where are the transaction logs going? They are as critical to the Db as the
data files.
RAID-10 wins hands down. RAID-5 has just too much overhead for the parity.
From a safety perspective, on RAID-5, you loose 2 drives, bye bye data.
RAID -10 can lose half it's drives, as long as it is never both pairs of a
mirror.
So performance wins.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only
for
> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
> Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
> This is my question:
> I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
> for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give
me
> enough HD space. So on with the question.
> Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
> RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection,
but
> gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
> RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
> overhead.
> Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
> compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
> So what do you guys think?
>
> -King
>|||Hi
Yes, have write cache, as long as the RAID card has battery backup. If not,
kiss your data goodbye as you will have some decent corruption.
For us, data security over performance, so write caching is off.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#62vk86EFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> yes.
> go RAID 1+0
> If you have time you can test this with a handful of IOStress test
> utilities.
> you could also talk directly to your vendor.
> As I learned today, you will also want to maximize the WRITE Cache on the
> RAID Controller(s).
>
> Cheers
> Greg Jackson
> PDX, Oregon
>|||yes....HEAVENS YES.
One needs "battery backed" Cache.
GAJ|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:%23qs9yC7EFHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Yes, have write cache, as long as the RAID card has battery backup. If
not,
> kiss your data goodbye as you will have some decent corruption.
>
Yes we have a 72-hour backup on all RAID controllers

> For us, data security over performance, so write caching is off.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "pdxJaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#62vk86EFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:e4EdmB7EFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Where are the transaction logs going? They are as critical to the Db as
the
> data files.
> RAID-10 wins hands down. RAID-5 has just too much overhead for the parity.
> From a safety perspective, on RAID-5, you loose 2 drives, bye bye data.
> RAID -10 can lose half it's drives, as long as it is never both pairs of a
> mirror.
> So performance wins.
Mike,
Thanks! Thats what i thought.. but what puzzled me was the spindols. Since
the RAID5 configuration would have more drives to spread the write acrossed
then the RAID 1+0 i wasn't sure if it mattered. Keep in mind i haven't got
the hardware yet... so no testing has been done. and yes i will do testing.
thanks for your input.
-King

> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
> news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> for
faster[vbcol=seagreen]
give[vbcol=seagreen]
> me
> but
>|||In a Raid 1+0 you can't look at it as only x many drives to write to. In
your case you 10 drives that are configured as such. 5 Mirrored pairs that
are striped in a Raid 0 configuration. Yes that means you have to split the
data 5 ways vs. 9 for the Raid 5 but each split goes to a mirrored pair. The
mirrored pair has the option to read from one disk and write to the other,
write to both, read from both etc. It can be smart in how it reads and
writes to the mirrored pair. That plus the fact it doe not have to
calculate parity is a fast combination.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:%23qHC657EFHA.3672@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:e4EdmB7EFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> the
> Mike,
> Thanks! Thats what i thought.. but what puzzled me was the spindols.
> Since
> the RAID5 configuration would have more drives to spread the write
> acrossed
> then the RAID 1+0 i wasn't sure if it mattered. Keep in mind i haven't
> got
> the hardware yet... so no testing has been done. and yes i will do
> testing.
> thanks for your input.
> -King
>
> faster
> give
>|||This website has great details and arguments why you should not use RAID 5
for a RDBMS implementation
http://www.baarf.com/
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2005 All rights reserved.
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@.bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only for
> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
> Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
> This is my question:
> I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
> for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give
> me
> enough HD space. So on with the question.
> Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
> RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection,
> but
> gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
> RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
> overhead.
> Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
> compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
> So what do you guys think?
>
> -King
>

RAID & Drive Type for Server?

I'm shopping for a dedicated server service to host my web application that
uses SQL Server 2000 (eventually 2005) with everything on one box (IIS, COM+
application, etc.) although backups will go to a NAS unit. My database is
currently less than 300mb but I would certainly want to accommodate a 3gb+
database and accommodate ten or a hundred concurrent web users as my
business hopefully improves.
One of the hosting companies offers a number of RAID choices. Their choices
include RAID 0 (not fault tolerant - won't be using that), RAID 1 with two
drives, RAID 5 with three drives, and RAID 10 with four drives. There is
apparently NOT the luxury of further configuration options like more drives
using one RAID configuration, mixing RAID flavors with more drives, etc.
There is also the choice between using SATA II drives (7200 or 10000 rpm,
250 to 750gbs - about 200gb more than I will ever need) or SA-SCSI (10 or
15K rpm, 73gb only)
With these constrained choices, what would be your recommendations for the
best redundancy and best fault tolerance where the speed of read-writes is
less of an issue (because no user would ever notice the difference until the
server was running at 50% cpu or more)?
My thought is the more drives the better, the fast the rpm the better, but I
don't know enough about whether SATA drives is the next new thing compared
to SCSI technology, and I don't know whether the difference between RAID 5
or 10 would really make any difference (besides decreasing the chance of
failure with one more drive).
Thanks for any recommendations or thoughts.Given the small size of your database, I'd probably go with RAID 1. It would
give you enough space, less expensive than RAID 10, lower overhead than RAID
5, and better protection than RAID 0. And again given what you described, I'd
probably not want to explore any new(er) technologies, and I would just go
with the mature SCSI, have it set up, get it running and forget about it.
Linchi
"Don Miller" wrote:
> I'm shopping for a dedicated server service to host my web application that
> uses SQL Server 2000 (eventually 2005) with everything on one box (IIS, COM+
> application, etc.) although backups will go to a NAS unit. My database is
> currently less than 300mb but I would certainly want to accommodate a 3gb+
> database and accommodate ten or a hundred concurrent web users as my
> business hopefully improves.
> One of the hosting companies offers a number of RAID choices. Their choices
> include RAID 0 (not fault tolerant - won't be using that), RAID 1 with two
> drives, RAID 5 with three drives, and RAID 10 with four drives. There is
> apparently NOT the luxury of further configuration options like more drives
> using one RAID configuration, mixing RAID flavors with more drives, etc.
> There is also the choice between using SATA II drives (7200 or 10000 rpm,
> 250 to 750gbs - about 200gb more than I will ever need) or SA-SCSI (10 or
> 15K rpm, 73gb only)
> With these constrained choices, what would be your recommendations for the
> best redundancy and best fault tolerance where the speed of read-writes is
> less of an issue (because no user would ever notice the difference until the
> server was running at 50% cpu or more)?
> My thought is the more drives the better, the fast the rpm the better, but I
> don't know enough about whether SATA drives is the next new thing compared
> to SCSI technology, and I don't know whether the difference between RAID 5
> or 10 would really make any difference (besides decreasing the chance of
> failure with one more drive).
> Thanks for any recommendations or thoughts.
>
>|||I tend to agree with Linchi given the small size of the db. Most if not all
of the data should be in cache anyway so there should be very little disk
I/O on a constant basis.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Don Miller" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eAH7N0W9GHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm shopping for a dedicated server service to host my web application
> that
> uses SQL Server 2000 (eventually 2005) with everything on one box (IIS,
> COM+
> application, etc.) although backups will go to a NAS unit. My database is
> currently less than 300mb but I would certainly want to accommodate a 3gb+
> database and accommodate ten or a hundred concurrent web users as my
> business hopefully improves.
> One of the hosting companies offers a number of RAID choices. Their
> choices
> include RAID 0 (not fault tolerant - won't be using that), RAID 1 with two
> drives, RAID 5 with three drives, and RAID 10 with four drives. There is
> apparently NOT the luxury of further configuration options like more
> drives
> using one RAID configuration, mixing RAID flavors with more drives, etc.
> There is also the choice between using SATA II drives (7200 or 10000 rpm,
> 250 to 750gbs - about 200gb more than I will ever need) or SA-SCSI (10 or
> 15K rpm, 73gb only)
> With these constrained choices, what would be your recommendations for the
> best redundancy and best fault tolerance where the speed of read-writes is
> less of an issue (because no user would ever notice the difference until
> the
> server was running at 50% cpu or more)?
> My thought is the more drives the better, the fast the rpm the better, but
> I
> don't know enough about whether SATA drives is the next new thing compared
> to SCSI technology, and I don't know whether the difference between RAID 5
> or 10 would really make any difference (besides decreasing the chance of
> failure with one more drive).
> Thanks for any recommendations or thoughts.
>|||One small caveat though, if a small database does a lot of writes, you can
still stress the I/O subsystem.
Linchi
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> I tend to agree with Linchi given the small size of the db. Most if not all
> of the data should be in cache anyway so there should be very little disk
> I/O on a constant basis.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Don Miller" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eAH7N0W9GHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > I'm shopping for a dedicated server service to host my web application
> > that
> > uses SQL Server 2000 (eventually 2005) with everything on one box (IIS,
> > COM+
> > application, etc.) although backups will go to a NAS unit. My database is
> > currently less than 300mb but I would certainly want to accommodate a 3gb+
> > database and accommodate ten or a hundred concurrent web users as my
> > business hopefully improves.
> >
> > One of the hosting companies offers a number of RAID choices. Their
> > choices
> > include RAID 0 (not fault tolerant - won't be using that), RAID 1 with two
> > drives, RAID 5 with three drives, and RAID 10 with four drives. There is
> > apparently NOT the luxury of further configuration options like more
> > drives
> > using one RAID configuration, mixing RAID flavors with more drives, etc.
> >
> > There is also the choice between using SATA II drives (7200 or 10000 rpm,
> > 250 to 750gbs - about 200gb more than I will ever need) or SA-SCSI (10 or
> > 15K rpm, 73gb only)
> >
> > With these constrained choices, what would be your recommendations for the
> > best redundancy and best fault tolerance where the speed of read-writes is
> > less of an issue (because no user would ever notice the difference until
> > the
> > server was running at 50% cpu or more)?
> >
> > My thought is the more drives the better, the fast the rpm the better, but
> > I
> > don't know enough about whether SATA drives is the next new thing compared
> > to SCSI technology, and I don't know whether the difference between RAID 5
> > or 10 would really make any difference (besides decreasing the chance of
> > failure with one more drive).
> >
> > Thanks for any recommendations or thoughts.
> >
> >
>
>|||Thanks for the quick reply yesterday and for your thoughts.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A93579B9-CD81-4E39-89AA-8955C05CB114@.microsoft.com...
> One small caveat though, if a small database does a lot of writes, you can
> still stress the I/O subsystem.
> Linchi
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Linchi given the small size of the db. Most if not
all
> > of the data should be in cache anyway so there should be very little
disk
> > I/O on a constant basis.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> > "Don Miller" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eAH7N0W9GHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > > I'm shopping for a dedicated server service to host my web application
> > > that
> > > uses SQL Server 2000 (eventually 2005) with everything on one box
(IIS,
> > > COM+
> > > application, etc.) although backups will go to a NAS unit. My database
is
> > > currently less than 300mb but I would certainly want to accommodate a
3gb+
> > > database and accommodate ten or a hundred concurrent web users as my
> > > business hopefully improves.
> > >
> > > One of the hosting companies offers a number of RAID choices. Their
> > > choices
> > > include RAID 0 (not fault tolerant - won't be using that), RAID 1 with
two
> > > drives, RAID 5 with three drives, and RAID 10 with four drives. There
is
> > > apparently NOT the luxury of further configuration options like more
> > > drives
> > > using one RAID configuration, mixing RAID flavors with more drives,
etc.
> > >
> > > There is also the choice between using SATA II drives (7200 or 10000
rpm,
> > > 250 to 750gbs - about 200gb more than I will ever need) or SA-SCSI (10
or
> > > 15K rpm, 73gb only)
> > >
> > > With these constrained choices, what would be your recommendations for
the
> > > best redundancy and best fault tolerance where the speed of
read-writes is
> > > less of an issue (because no user would ever notice the difference
until
> > > the
> > > server was running at 50% cpu or more)?
> > >
> > > My thought is the more drives the better, the fast the rpm the better,
but
> > > I
> > > don't know enough about whether SATA drives is the next new thing
compared
> > > to SCSI technology, and I don't know whether the difference between
RAID 5
> > > or 10 would really make any difference (besides decreasing the chance
of
> > > failure with one more drive).
> > >
> > > Thanks for any recommendations or thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

Radar Chart Type

Hi,

Currently SSRS does not have Radar chart type. Is this chart type expected in any near future release?

One option available is to lookout for component vendors for Reporting Serivces, is there any other alternative.

Thanks & Regards,

Hi,

Dundas offers (3D) spider charts.

You can also choose to implement your own: the keyword is "Custom Report Item" and a good introduction can be found on http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/10/sqlserver2005/default.aspx

If you are finished with developing a radar chart don't forget to post your solution as I am myself searching for the exact same thing. I think there is a clear need for SSRS chart extensions.

Yours,

Thijs

|||Pugaz,

I am looking for a radar (spider) graph to be able to embed in Infopath 2003 and render a graph from infopath fields. It doesn't look look like the Microsoft Chart control can handle this.

Did you have success with your approach and would it be applicable to my need?

Thanks,Tom

Radar Chart Type

Hi,

Currently SSRS does not have Radar chart type. Is this chart type expected in any near future release?

One option available is to lookout for component vendors for Reporting Serivces, is there any other alternative.

Thanks & Regards,

Hi,

Dundas offers (3D) spider charts.

You can also choose to implement your own: the keyword is "Custom Report Item" and a good introduction can be found on http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/10/sqlserver2005/default.aspx

If you are finished with developing a radar chart don't forget to post your solution as I am myself searching for the exact same thing. I think there is a clear need for SSRS chart extensions.

Yours,

Thijs

|||Pugaz,

I am looking for a radar (spider) graph to be able to embed in Infopath 2003 and render a graph from infopath fields. It doesn't look look like the Microsoft Chart control can handle this.

Did you have success with your approach and would it be applicable to my need?

Thanks,Tom
sql

Radar Chart Type

Hi,

Currently SSRS does not have Radar chart type. Is this chart type expected in any near future release?

One option available is to lookout for component vendors for Reporting Serivces, is there any other alternative.

Thanks & Regards,

Hi,

Dundas offers (3D) spider charts.

You can also choose to implement your own: the keyword is "Custom Report Item" and a good introduction can be found on http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/10/sqlserver2005/default.aspx

If you are finished with developing a radar chart don't forget to post your solution as I am myself searching for the exact same thing. I think there is a clear need for SSRS chart extensions.

Yours,

Thijs

|||Pugaz,

I am looking for a radar (spider) graph to be able to embed in Infopath 2003 and render a graph from infopath fields. It doesn't look look like the Microsoft Chart control can handle this.

Did you have success with your approach and would it be applicable to my need?

Thanks,Tom

radar chart ?

Hello, it seems that the radar type of chart is not available for Reporting
Services (in opposition, it is available in OWC10). Anyone can confirm that
or anyone has found any way to use radar chart in Reporting Services (without
purchasing commercial chart) ?
Thanks in advanceI forgot to mention : I use SQL Reporting Services with SQL Server 2000 (not
a newer version)
"Tenval Ael" wrote:
> Hello, it seems that the radar type of chart is not available for Reporting
> Services (in opposition, it is available in OWC10). Anyone can confirm that
> or anyone has found any way to use radar chart in Reporting Services (without
> purchasing commercial chart) ?
> Thanks in advance

Quotation Marks in SQL Server

I have an ASP.Net page that allows people to type in strings and store them into a SQL Server DB; which in turn gets displayed on a website.

The project has an admin side that can add/delete/edit announcements, which get displayed on an intranet site. These announcements can be clicked on to display further detail. When announcements are clicked on a javascript popup window is generated that displays the strings. All data is stored in a SQL Server DB.

What I need to know is: how do I check to see if a string has a quotation mark or apostrophe in it so that I can replace it with the appropriate HTML code? (Though it seems I can't display an apostrophe, even when using the HTML code ''')

If I store the string as was entered by the administrator (with quotation marks instead of '"'), the popup window will not display.

Try the links below for all the info you need including how to enable QUOTED_IDENTIFIER option in your create database statement and the restrictions. Hope this helps.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms174393.aspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms176027.aspx

|||

Search the forums for:

A) Parameterized SQL Query (What you should do)

B) SQL String concatenation (What you are probably doing)

C) SQL Injection attack (The security problems of doing B instead of A)

|||

Motley:

Search the forums for:

A) Parameterized SQL Query (What you should do)

B) SQL String concatenation (What you are probably doing)

C) SQL Injection attack (The security problems of doing B instead of A)

Not worried about SQL Injection attacks. This is an intranet app.|||

Caddre:

Try the links below for all the info you need including how to enable QUOTED_IDENTIFIER option in your create database statement and the restrictions. Hope this helps.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms174393.aspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms176027.aspx

Can you enable the Quoted_Identifier only when you create a new table?|||You can do it in your create database statement or create table, the how for table is covered in the second link. Hope this helps.|||After reading the replies and links that were posted, I feel that I need to reiterate my question.

There is a page that displays records from a SQL Server DB. These records are "announcements" on an internal bulletin board. An admin has a special page that gives the admin the ability to edit, add or delete any of these records.

For instance, an admin can add an announcement (using a textbox) that says, 'This sentence has "Quotation Marks" in it'. I want to be able to search that specific phrase for the quotation marks and replace them with the appropriate code so that they may be displayed on the bulletin board. I don't want the admin to have to type double quotes or double apostrophes in order for them to show up.

The page needs to be user friendly with any concates or alterations to occur server side.

So if anyone can tell me the proper way of say

if str.chars(x) = "<quotation>" then ...

that would be much appreciated.

This is the javascript that generates the pop-up window:
Alert Descrip

<script language="javascript">
//popup function which recieves the email group description and name as parameters
function popitup3(description, name)
{
newwindow2=window.open('','name','height=400,width=600,scrollbars=yes');
var tmp = newwindow2.document;
tmp.write('<html><head><title>Alert Description</title>');
tmp.write('</head><body><font face="verdana, tahoma, sans-serif" size="2"');
tmp.write('b><br><p align="justify">');
tmp.write(description);
tmp.write('</p><p><a href="javascript:self.close()">close</a> this window.</p>');
tmp.write('</body></html>');
tmp.close();
}
</script>

Variable description is where the text with the quotes would most likely be.|||

I am sorry I did not understand your original post you are looking for ANSI SQL LIKE and Pattern search. Try the link below for sample code. Hope this helps.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_la-lz_115x.asp

Quotation marks

Hi
Can someone tell me what i am doing wrong below:
--
Create table Tb1 (CnID varchar(10),Type varchar(100))
insert into Tb1 values ('7','Joe'+"'"+'s')
select * from Tb1
Drop table Tb1
--
I would like the 2nd column to appear as Joe's in the resultset.
Thank you in advanceTry this:
INSERT INTO Tb1 VALUES('7', 'Joe''s';
HTH
Vern
"MittyKom" wrote:

> Hi
> Can someone tell me what i am doing wrong below:
> --
> Create table Tb1 (CnID varchar(10),Type varchar(100))
> insert into Tb1 values ('7','Joe'+"'"+'s')
> select * from Tb1
> Drop table Tb1
> --
> I would like the 2nd column to appear as Joe's in the resultset.
> Thank you in advance|||Oops, forgot the closing parenthesis:
INSERT INTO Tb1 VALUES('7', 'Joe''s');
"Vern Rabe" wrote:
> Try this:
> INSERT INTO Tb1 VALUES('7', 'Joe''s';
> HTH
> Vern
> "MittyKom" wrote:
>|||escape single quote with a single quote
like
'joe''s'
(P.S: that not a double quote, its 2 single quotes :)|||Hi MittyKom
There is no need for any concatenation of strings. If you use two single
quotes inside outer single quotes, it is interpreted as one single quote in
the string.
So your use of concatenation is unnecessary but your use of the double
quotes (") is incorrect. Most interfaces have a setting called
QUOTED_IDENTIFIER set to on, which means that double quotes are used only to
delimit identifiers, and not user data. So the message you are receiving
refers to the fact that your single quote inside the double quotes is being
interpreted as an identifer, and it makes no sense.
So the cleanest solution is to just make it all one string to insert into
the second column, with the two adjacent single quotes getting interpreted
as one single quote in the string.
Create table Tb1 (CnID varchar(10),Type varchar(100))
insert into Tb1 values ('7','Joe''s')
select * from Tb1
Drop table Tb1
The other solution is to SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFF, and then your original
solution will work (but if you leave it on, other things might break)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"MittyKom" <MittyKom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCA8C966-786F-485D-843C-F361804326E8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Can someone tell me what i am doing wrong below:
> --
> Create table Tb1 (CnID varchar(10),Type varchar(100))
> insert into Tb1 values ('7','Joe'+"'"+'s')
> select * from Tb1
> Drop table Tb1
> --
> I would like the 2nd column to appear as Joe's in the resultset.
> Thank you in advance|||Thank you so much Vern and Omnibuzz.
"Omnibuzz" wrote:

> escape single quote with a single quote
> like
> 'joe''s'
> (P.S: that not a double quote, its 2 single quotes :)
>|||I use char(39) I think..
Insert Into Emp (LastName) Values ("O" + char(39) + "clock") -- O'clock
something like that.
I know there are quotes/inside other quotes methods, but those sometimes
come back to haunt me, since I deal with client's databases that I don't
have full control over.
..
"MittyKom" <MittyKom@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCA8C966-786F-485D-843C-F361804326E8@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Can someone tell me what i am doing wrong below:
> --
> Create table Tb1 (CnID varchar(10),Type varchar(100))
> insert into Tb1 values ('7','Joe'+"'"+'s')
> select * from Tb1
> Drop table Tb1
> --
> I would like the 2nd column to appear as Joe's in the resultset.
> Thank you in advance

quick date conversion - not hard!

im trying to convert my column of data type datetime. this is an example of what the data looks like:

2007-01-24 10:01:29.710

i want to format it as so

200701241001

ive tried this so far i think im sort of on the right track

RIGHT('000000000000' + CONVERT(varchar(20), CONVERT(int, sr.ResponseDate)),12) AS FinalDate

but its not outputting exactly what i want

thanks
andreas

Quote:

Originally Posted by andreas2410

im trying to convert my column of data type datetime. this is an example of what the data looks like:

2007-01-24 10:01:29.710

i want to format it as so

200701241001

ive tried this so far i think im sort of on the right track

RIGHT('000000000000' + CONVERT(varchar(20), CONVERT(int, sr.ResponseDate)),12) AS FinalDate

but its not outputting exactly what i want

thanks
andreas

im also thinking that i will need when i try convert

to put it into the style code either

code 20 or 120 yyyy-mm-dd hh:mi:ss(24h)

so thats 24 hour which is what i need and then rip the separators

or in code 126 below so theres no spaces, but i dont think thats 24 hr representation

code 126 yyyy-mm-dd Thh:mm:ss.mmm(no spaces)

Quick custom security question

I am trying to implement some type of security based on the user, the
report, and what parameters the are supplying.
So lets say that I have a report called "Salary Report" that shows
employees salary and bonus data. The people who can run the report
with Department = 1 are not allowed to run the report as Department = 2.
Previously I believe the answer was to use the "UserId" in my reports,
which would be populated with the current users Username, but we
already have a very complex system for determining peoples rights to
different things on our intranet site.
People can delegate rights to others, people get rights based on their
project assignments, people get rights based on their position in the
company, people get rights based on who they report to, and who reports
to them, and on and on.
So all I need to know to validate is username (or userID), what report
they are running, and what parameters they are supplying.
Is there any way to do this?Would a query based parameter work for you where you use a stored procedure
to return a list of valid parameters that they can use for that report based
on who they are and what rights they have inherrited?
Steve MunLeeuw
"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1161293948.030847.304270@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I am trying to implement some type of security based on the user, the
> report, and what parameters the are supplying.
> So lets say that I have a report called "Salary Report" that shows
> employees salary and bonus data. The people who can run the report
> with Department = 1 are not allowed to run the report as Department => 2.
> Previously I believe the answer was to use the "UserId" in my reports,
> which would be populated with the current users Username, but we
> already have a very complex system for determining peoples rights to
> different things on our intranet site.
> People can delegate rights to others, people get rights based on their
> project assignments, people get rights based on their position in the
> company, people get rights based on who they report to, and who reports
> to them, and on and on.
> So all I need to know to validate is username (or userID), what report
> they are running, and what parameters they are supplying.
> Is there any way to do this?
>

Queued Updating Subscribers Question

When I looked into setting this up I received a message that an identity column would be added to all my tables for this type of replication.
Wouldn't this result in my having to change all code that touches these tables to take the new column into account?
Queued Updating is new to me, I am trying to learn the best replication option for our reporting database, but am a little confused.
Any/All help is appreciated!
Thanx!
JLS,
if the identity column is already there on the publisher, it is transferred
to the subscriber but no new identity columns will be created. On each
indetity column the column is designated as Identity Yes (Not for
Replication). This ensures that the replication process can insert values
into the column, and for an insert on the subscriber itself SQL Server can
have values allocated as per normal. To avoid clashes, identity ranges are
allocated to publisher and each subscriber, each node having different
seeds; these ranges and the allocating of new ranges is configurable at the
publication level.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||I'm sorry Paul, I don't follow. I have been setting up and tearing down
replication every which way from Sunday, so everything is sort of running
together.
I changed all my identity columns on the Subscriber to Yes(Not for
Replication), I don't really have any issue here. It is my understanding
that what happens here is the value from the Publisher is popped into this
field on the Subscriber, and that's the way I would want it to work as I
don't intend to have any updates occurring on the Subscriber.
When I selected Queued Updating as an option, in the Identity warning screen
I saw a new warning that stated a new column would be added, and every table
I am replicating was listed, and the new column is a replication column.
The warning also stated that this may cause INSERT to fail & cause the table
to become larger.
Can you explain this in "For Dummies who haven't had enough coffee yet this
morning" terms?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:%23dXpbRuTEHA.1548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> JLS,
> if the identity column is already there on the publisher, it is
transferred
> to the subscriber but no new identity columns will be created. On each
> indetity column the column is designated as Identity Yes (Not for
> Replication). This ensures that the replication process can insert values
> into the column, and for an insert on the subscriber itself SQL Server can
> have values allocated as per normal. To avoid clashes, identity ranges are
> allocated to publisher and each subscriber, each node having different
> seeds; these ranges and the allocating of new ranges is configurable at
the
> publication level.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||JLS,
the column you are referring to is not an identity column -
it is a GUID. This is added and may cause tsql to fail
when it doesn't have an explicit column list eg
insert into table1
select * from replicatetable
If you are using Queued Updating Subscribers and are
letting replication do the initialization for you, you
don't need to alter identity columns on the subscriber -
they'll be set correctly for you.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
ps if you don't intend having subscribers update the data,
then why not use standard transactional replication?
|||Ah, ok I get it now. Thanx!!!!
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:1ae5301c44eee$b71dc120$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> JLS,
> the column you are referring to is not an identity column -
> it is a GUID. This is added and may cause tsql to fail
> when it doesn't have an explicit column list eg
> insert into table1
> select * from replicatetable
> If you are using Queued Updating Subscribers and are
> letting replication do the initialization for you, you
> don't need to alter identity columns on the subscriber -
> they'll be set correctly for you.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison
> ps if you don't intend having subscribers update the data,
> then why not use standard transactional replication?
>