DELETED_3139

Do you have the option of RAID6 with that card? RAID6 is a better option than RAID5 and a spare in that there's no capacity hit and you maintain redundancy during a rebuild following a single drive loss.

That said whether a single array is the best option is still up for debate.

How complex is the database application? Normally you'd want to separate the database and it's transaction logs onto separate disks (or arrays) to reduce I/O contention and hence improve performance. Obviously if there's no logs then there's nothing to separate.
 
Typical config where I am would be to have 2 x 146 Raid 0 for the OS and apps, with 3 x 146 raid 5 for data.
 
Lee said:
Typical config where I am would be to have 2 x 146 Raid 0 for the OS and apps, with 3 x 146 raid 5 for data.
Click to expand...

RAID0 for a business OS drive - are you crazy?

RAID1 mirrored OS
RAID 1+0 for RDBMS

Please don't consider RAID5 for a high performance RDBMS.
 
NickK said:
RAID0 for a business OS drive - are you crazy?

RAID1 mirrored OS
RAID 1+0 for RDBMS

Please don't consider RAID5 for a high performance RDBMS.
Click to expand...

Deffo agree about the RAID0 point :)

Based on what their db is currently running on - moving to the new kit on a RAID5 they are still going to get a decent performance kick right ?
 
CrimsonAvenger said:
Deffo agree about the RAID0 point :)

Based on what their db is currently running on - moving to the new kit on a RAID5 they are still going to get a decent performance kick right ?
Click to expand...

As always it depends on the access pattern (inserts/updates/queries/deletes) versus the I/O characteristics of the chosen RAID form.

DBs on RAID5 isn't normally done due to the way the DB accesses and how the RAID5 works cause a lot of needless data to be shifted.

RAID 1+0 will offer more database friendly I/O characteristics than RAID5 or RAID6.

I'm not going to make the decision for you - you will need to research these points further until you're comfortable with the decision you'll make.
 
Hope you put plenty of RAM in that SBS box because it sure does use a lot.

Half of the MS server product line running on one box *shudder*

Had the bad luck to work for a tiny MS reseller once who had a few SBS customers, i ended up getting the customers to put 4Gb of RAM in them just to stop them complaining about running out of memory.
 
If you do not have the BBWC you can not enable writes on the controller and the cache can only be used for buffering reads. This will nastily impact any write based activity in a RAID 5 array and thus would not be a good implementation. I would want to keep the OS and apps away from the DB but you do not really have the right hardware to do this easily. I would go for RIAD 10 w/ hotspare.
 
Oh and i hope you licenced the iLO card as well, since its about as useful as a chocolate teapot without the remote control.
 
Interesting thread. I thought RAID 10 would be the best option :confused: BTW: Stolly, your sig is classic mate. Can't be that bad lol
 
As a server it should be sat in a machine room and is designed to run 24/7.

The requirements for a business server are very different from those of a desktop PC or workstation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom