Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-09-21 : 11:12:08
|
| Can someone here help me answer some questions that have been bothing me as of late?1. How many MB/sec of sustained throughput should I see from a new 73GB 10k RPM Fibre Channel Drive?2. If you have to serve up a bunch of files (images, small audio files, and FoxPro databases) what would be the best way to get a really high performing file server?3. What sort of RAID setup is optimal for a 50/50 read /write SQL database?4. What sort of RAID setup is optimal for a write heavy SQL database?I have what I think are the correct answers to these questions, but I don't want to taint your minds with possibly incorrect solutions. Any ideas or insights on these things would be greatly appreciated.Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
ffoiii
Starting Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 2004-09-22 : 00:28:35
|
| I just wrote a paper on this topic for my current employer. I will ask my employer if I can email you my document tomorrow. Email me at frank.owen@visibillity.com if you would like this document.ffoiii |
 |
|
|
aiken
Aged Yak Warrior
525 Posts |
Posted - 2004-09-24 : 01:34:05
|
| I'm not a huge expert here, but in my opinion:1. It depends. Are we talking sequential access or random access? If the disk is being used for a transaction log, you should see much better throughput than if it's being used for a large DB with a lot of random access.2. RAID 5 for reads, RAID 1 for writes, several different channels/controllers.3. Are you really going to have a DB with every table being 50/50 read/write? If so, probably RAID 1 is best overall (or RAID 10). But really, you can probably seperate read-intensive tables from write-intensive tables and put them each on the fastest disk subsystem.4. Raid 0, as long as it stripes sequentially logical clusters across all of the drives. But given that you probably want some fault tolerance, RAID 10 is probably the second best.There's a bunch of info out there, but in short RAID 5 allows a single read to be spread across multiple spindles, but every write to a RAID 5 involves multiple reads before the write can be done (to compute parity). Hence the high read performance but poor write performance (relative to RAID 1).Cheers-b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disk Subsystem Questions