logs on RAID 0

MS SQL SERVER

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. HD Configuration / SQL Impact
    Does anyone know of any good documents showing the impact of distributing or not distributing log files / database files among multiple drives? We are wanting to have 1 drive (backed up with bare metal recovery software) for the system and 1 Drive for all SQL data and log files (same backup as previous). The database will never get over 120 GB. The machine will have 8GB RAM. What gains would be see IN THE REAL WORLD if we distributed these files out???? Thanks for your thoughts! Cameron
  • 2. MS Access or MySQL
    Hello Andrew, Maybe you can help. I need to create an shoe inventory database which will allow only one person to make changes and everyone else to view the inventory. The inventory is fairly small but may grow in the future. The databse should be able to do seasonal comparisons. For instance, how well was sales in Fall as copared to the Spring. The database will be located on a central desktop that is neighborhood network. I am not sure if I should use MS Access which can tie into EXCEL for the WhatIF forcasting or MySQL which does not have a data limitation. What do you think? Thanks, AG.
  • 3. Patch for v6.5 to Win2K?
    We have version 6.5 of MS SQL Server and I want to install it on a Windows 2000 Server. I've heard I'll need a patch for this. Is this true? Anyone know where to get it?

logs on RAID 0

Postby Y2hpbGRvZnRoZTE5ODBz » Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:13:02 GMT

Hello:

Is it OK to have ldf files on a RAID 0 drive?

childofthe1980s



Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby ?Utf-8?Q?Ekrem_C396nsoy » Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:01:56 GMT

It depends. If you are looking for only performence but not redundancy for 
your t-log then go with the RAID0.

If you are looking for performance and redundancy for your t-log then I 
suggest you to use RAID1 for your t-log.

-- 
Ekrem nsoy



"childofthe1980s" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in 




Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby Tibor Karaszi » Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:34:56 GMT

Just to add a little bit to Ekrem's comments.

If there's anything where you want redundancy, then it is the log files. If you lose the mdf file, 
you still backup the log, and have zero data loss. If you lose the log file, well, you can't do a 
backup of the log...

Of course, above assumes full recovery model and that zero data loss is something you aim for.

-- 
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
 http://www.**--****.com/ 
 http://www.**--****.com/ 








Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby Andrew J. Kelly » Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:00:04 GMT

Is it OK to loose data?

-- 
Andrew J. Kelly    SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"childofthe1980s" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in 




Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby Y2hpbGRvZnRoZTE5ODBz » Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:17:08 GMT

Sarcasm is extremely unprofessional.  And, it's the worst form of "mentoring" 
that there is.

This posting is supposed to be a friendly place where people can I ask 
questions and discuss ideas.  

This is the second time on this newsgroup that a "professional" has been 
rude when I ask a question.

If any Newsgroup admins review these postings, please take action.

childofthe1980s






Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby Andrew J. Kelly » Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:00:40 GMT

That wasn't sarcasm, it was a valid question. You provided no information 
what so ever, you just posed a question to which it is impossible to answer 
correctly without more information. There are plenty of systems that don't 
require the stability logs provide. For instance a DataMart that gets 
rebuilt each night. As a matter of fact many DW type systems use Raid 0 for 
the speed of writes and the fact that less disks are required. Maybe before 
you jump to conclusions you should consider providing more detail so people 
can give more directed answers without assumptions.

-- 
Andrew J. Kelly    SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"childofthe1980s" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in 






Re: logs on RAID 0

Postby Hank Arnold (MVP) » Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:24:50 GMT


It's no OK to have, IMHO, *ANYTHING* on a RAID 0 array. I'm sure that 
there are some who feel it's OK in certain situations, but certainly not 
here.

The problem is that if either drive fails, YOU LOSE *EVERYTHING*!! It 
would be a major disaster if you lose the ldf files for a database. Put 
them on a RAID 1 array and sleep at night....

-- 

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

Similar Threads:

1.Log file Raid 1 VS Raid5 on EMC symmetrix DMX

Hi! Ever since I worked with sql server I have been placing sql log files on
Raid 1, which is the recomendation I read everywhere (from books, internet
etc).
Now, we are going to use EMC symmetrix DMX and folks here want to save some
money by configuring RAID 5 for both datafile and log file. Their
justification is, EMC DMX is totally different architecture and its fast, so
there won't be much difference between Raid5 and Raid1 for Sql server.
Is this true? Is anyone using EMC for Sql log file with Raid 5
configuration? Is there any whitepaper or artical that specifically talks
Sql log file on EMC.
I appreciate your help.



2.Transaction log and RAID cache

Hi

Let's say I've placed my database's transaction log on a separate RAID1 
volume on a separate RAID controller. Does it make sense to dedicate the 
cache on that RAID controller only for writes? Wouldn't that speed up log 
writes for transactions?

3.Transaction Log and Raid

I am looking to improve performance of the sql system.  I have the trans log 
split onto its own RAID5 drive.  We are thinking about going to RAID0 to try 
abd boost throughput.  Any ideas?

Richard 


4.RAID Setup (RAID 1 with RAID 10)

Would a RAID 1 OS array &  a separate RAID 10 array for the SQL database
files a valid setup?   Or can this be improved?

Was thinking of making it more simplistic.   One array for the OS, & a
faster DATA array for SQL.  

Swap file would be located on RAID 1, will have 2GB of RAM in server.
SQL transation logs to be residing on RAID 10

5.RAID 5 beats RAID 10

RAID 5 beats RAID 10

Can I get some feedback on these results?  We were having some serious
IO issues according to PerfMon so I really pushed for RAID 10.  The
results are not what I expected.

I have 2 identical servers.

Hardware:
PowerEdge 2850
2 dual core dual core Xeon 2800 MHz
4GB RAM
Controller Cards: Perc4/DC (2 arrays), Perc4e/Di (1 array)

PowerVault 220S
Each Array consisted of 6-300 GB drives.

Server 1 = Raid 10
3, 6-disk arrays

Server 2 = Raid 5 (~838 GB each)
3, 6-disk arrays (~1360 GB each)

Test			Winner	% Faster
SQL Server - Update	RAID 5	13
Heavy ETL		RAID 5	16
SQLIO - Rand Write	RAID 10	40
SQLIO - Rand Read	RAID 10	30
SQLIO - Seq Write	RAID 5	15
SQLIO - Seq Read	RAID 5	Mixed
Disktt - Seq Write	RAID 5	18
Disktt - Seq Read	RAID 5	2000
Disktt - Rand Read	RAID 5	62
Pass Mark - mixed	RAID 10	Varies
Pass Mark -
Simulate SQL Server	RAID 5	1%

I have much more detail than this if anyone is interested.

6. RAID 5 on a SAN instead of RAID 1/0

7. Raid 1 vs Raid 5

8. RAID 1 and write caching raid controllers



Return to MS SQL SERVER

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guest