SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
space.
The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to consider.
1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
application installations.
If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy, if
I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me 315GB
minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be indexing
around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and that
I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
done with it. Thought?
Sorry for the long post.Every case is unique per the Budget , Scope, SLAs etc... to come up with teh
right configuration.
It also depends upon the Access Patterns, Number of Data files and groups,
Index and TempDB Placement.
I would recommend that you start at the MSFT Operations guide at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...ide/default.asp
And look at Chapter 6, which talks about Capacity Planning.
HTH
Satish Balusa
Corillian Corp.
"cyberpunk" <blah@.anon.com> wrote in message
news:eONEAKr3DHA.1404@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
quote:
> I have been tasked with setting up a brand new PowerEdge 2650 for
> SharePoint, SQL 2000 and Windows 2003. This server has 5 physical disks,
> all 73GB, 2GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor.
> My question is in regards to the best possible RAID setup for SQL
> performance as well as retaining as much disk space as possible.
> If I read the docs correctly SQL is best suited to have the tempdb,
> application files and log files all on separate physical disks.
> I cannot find a way to do this without losing a lot of my available disk
> space.
> The way I see it, as well as my SQL admin, there are 3 factors to
consider.
quote:
> 1. Speed (performance), 2. Reliability 3. Capacity.
> If I configure everything in one big RAID 5 array I would have excellent
> reliability, and have (73x4) 292GB free for data, probably 270GB after
> application installations.
> If I configure disk 1 for OS and apps, disk 2 for log files and disks 3,4
> and 5 for data I would have 219GB available for data with no redundancy,
if
quote:
> I add RAID 5 across those 3 disks I would get 146GB useable space,
> dramatically less than the 292GB from the other config.
> A third option is to create a 10GB (or 20GB) partition on disk 1, mirror
> that to disk 2 and configure all 5 disks in a RAID 5 configuration. The
> problem with this is that I can only use 63GB of each disk, giving me
315GB
quote:
> minus parity drive, for a total useable size of 252GB. However, I don't
> think this configuration would give me much of a performance gain in SQL.
> So my questions are this : what would you recommend, taking into account
> that this machine will be running W2k3, SQL 2000 and SharePoint 2003. The
> server will have about 50GB of local data *eventually*, and will be
indexing
quote:
> around 150GB of data residing on a NAS device.
> Also, I have heard that SharePoint doesn't really tax SQL that bad and
that
quote:
> I'm over-analyzing the problem. Just set it up as one big RAID 5 and be
> done with it. Thought?
> Sorry for the long post.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment